4.2 Article

Cone Beam Computed Tomography, A Low-Dose Imaging Technique in the Postoperative Assessment of Cochlear Implantation

Journal

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 299-303

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31819679f9

Keywords

Inner ear; Cochlear implants; Cone beam computed tomography; Radiation dosage; Temporal bones

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become an extremely useful technique for dentomaxillofacial imaging because it provides clear images of highly contrasted structures. Previous studies evaluating the applicability of this technique in otologic imaging were very encouraging but were only performed in vitro on temporal bone specimens. The intracochlear positioning of the individual electrodes after cochlear implantation by means of CBCT has not yet been shown in vivo. Objective: We describe a protocol for in vivo postoperative imaging of cochlear implants by CBCT. Moreover, the effective dose was measured and compared with the effective dose used on 4- and 16-slice multislice computed tomography (MSCT) by using a RANDO-phantom. Main Outcome Measure: Developing a protocol for in vivo postoperative imaging of cochlear implants by CBCT. Results: CBCT provides high-resolution and almost artifact-free multiplanar reconstruction images allowing assessment of the precise intracochlear position of the electrode and visualization of each of the individual contacts. The calculated effective dose of the used CBCT and MSCT acquisitions is 80 mu sv for the CBCT, 3,600 mu sv for the 16-slice computed tomography, and 4,800 mu sv for the 4-slice computed tomography. Conclusion: These preliminary results suggests that, for in vivo postoperative evaluation of cochlear implants, CBCT can provide at least the same information as conventional radiography, digital radiograph, and MSCT but in a more comfortable and a much more safer way.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available