Comparison of The Accuracy of CBCT and MDCT Imaging Modalities in Determining the Distance Between the Incus and the Facial Nerve and the Round Window and the Oval Window: A Cadaveric Cross-Sectional Study

Authors

  • Sanaz Sharifishoshtari Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Nader Saki Hearing Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
  • Zohreh Roozbahani Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Yasamin Mehrab Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Ali Hesari Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31661/gmj.vi.3919

Keywords:

MDCT; CBCT; Round Window; Oval Window; Facial Nerve; Incus; Cochlear Implant

Abstract

Background: Hearing loss is the most common birth defect, and cochlear implants are an effective treatment for severe sensorineural loss. This study compared CBCT and MDCT accuracy in measuring key ear structures to aid cochlear implant planning. Materials and Methods: In this cadaveric cross-sectional laboratory study, 12 temporal bones along with their covering soft tissue in the archive of the ENT department of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz were studied. Imaging was performed using high-resolution CBCT, low-resolution CBCT, and MDCT modalities. Measurements were performed by an oral and maxillofacial radiologist and a general radiologist. The obtained data were analyzed descriptively and analytically in SPSS-21 software. Results: The results revealed a high agreement between the data related to the distance of the incus from the facial nerve and the distance of the oval window from the round window in High-resolution CBCT, Low-resolution CBCT, and MDCT images. However, there was a significant difference in the measurement of MDCT and low-resolution CBCT compared to high-resolution CBCT. There was no significant difference in the measurement between MDCT and low-resolution CBCT. Conclusion: Based on our study and some previous studies on quantitative measurements of CBCT and MDCT imaging, low-resolution CBCT can be more reliably replaced by MDCT and achieve acceptable results compared to MDCT using a lower radiation dose. More studies are needed regarding the significant difference between high-resolution CBCT and MDCT, but the higher resolution of the borders in high-resolution CBCT images may be the reason for this result.

References

Saki N, Abshirini H, Bayat A, Nikakhlagh S, Fahimi A, Heidari M, et al. Factors Affecting Age of Diagnosis and Rehabilitation Intervention in Children Receiving Cochlear Implant. Int Tinnitus J. 2018;22(2): 123‑127.

https://doi.org/10.5935/0946-5448.20180021

Petersen NK, Jørgensen AW, Ovesen T. Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: systematic review and meta‑analysis. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(12):924‑932.

https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1091094

PMid:26642892 PMCid:PMC4732452

Luers JC, Hüttenbrink KB, Beutner D. Surgical anatomy of the round window - implications for cochlear implantation. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018;43(2):417‑424.

https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13048

PMid:29240305

Stuermer K, Winter T, Nachtsheim L, Klussmann JP, Luers JC. Round window accessibility during cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(2):363‑370.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06095-4

PMid:32506146

Singal A, Sahni D, Gupta T, Aggarwal A, Gupta AK. Anatomic variability of oval window as pertaining to stapes surgery. Surg Radiol Anat. 2020;42(3):329‑335.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02347-z

PMid:31549199

Chien W, Northrop C, Levine S, Pilch BZ, Peake WT, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN. Anatomy of the distal incus in humans. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2009;10(4):485‑496.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-009-0179-6

PMid:19685262 PMCid:PMC2774412

Amidi F. Snell's Clinical Head and Neck Anatomy. 8th ed: Chapter/Section covering anatomy; 141-143.

Drake RL, Mahdizadeh M, et al. Gray's head and neck anatomy. P: 84; 2020.

Hseh H‑S, Wu C‑M, Zhuo M‑Y, Yang C‑H, Hwang C‑F. Intraoperative facial nerve monitoring during cochlear implant surgery: an observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(4):e456.

https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000456

PMid:25793243 PMCid:PMC4602960

Jiang JY, Liu X, Yao J, Tian Y, Xia C, Li Y, et al. Measurement of cochlea to facial nerve canal with thin‑section computed tomographic image. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(2):614‑616.

https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31827c7c96

PMid:23524757

Von Liberg B, Kieter T, Tillein J, et al. Electric‑acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: new technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1999;61:334‑340.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000027695

PMid:10545807

O'Connell BP, Hunter JB, Wanna GB. The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2016;1(4):169‑174.

https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.42

PMid:28894813 PMCid:PMC5510268

Carlson ML, Driscoll CLW, Gifford RH, et al. Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32(6):962‑968.

https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182204526

PMid:21659922 PMCid:PMC4127076

Dalchow CV, Weber AL, Yanagihara N, Bien S, Werner JA. Digital volume tomography: radiologic examinations of the temporal bone. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:416‑423.

https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1353

PMid:16423947

Dalchow CV, Weber AL, Bien S, Yanagihara N, Werner JA. Value of digital volume tomography in patients with conductive hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263:929.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-005-0995-1

PMid:16163510

Peltonen LI, Aarnisalo AA, Kortesniemi MK, Suomalainen A, Jero J, Robinson SL. Limited cone‑beam computed tomography imaging of the middle ear: comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:207‑212.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850601080465

PMid:17354143

Linsenmaier U, Rock C, Euler E, et al. Three‑dimensional CT with a modified C‑arm image intensifier: feasibility. Radiology. 2002;224:286‑292.

https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2241010646

PMid:12091697

Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Hochmuth A, et al. Imaging procedures in cochlear implant patients - evaluation of different radiological techniques. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124(Suppl 552):46‑49.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03655230410017175

PMid:26942827

Verbist BM, Frijns JHM, Geleijns J, van Buchem MA. Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:424‑429.

Advanced Bionics. Surgeon Manual for the HiRes™ Ultra 3D Cochlear Implant with the HiFocus™ SlimJ and HiFocus™ Mid‑Scala Electrodes. Stäfa, Switzerland: Advanced Bionics AG; Available from: advancedbionics.com/…/HiRes‑Ultra‑3D‑Surgeons‑Manual‑FDA.pdf

Sajic D, Archibald J, Murray C. Surface anatomy of the ear. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. 2014 Mar;18(2):13740.

https://doi.org/10.2310/7750.2013.13057

PMid:24636441

White SC, Pharaoh MJ. oral radiology principles and interpretation. Louis Mo: Mosby/Elsevier; 2018.

Sharifishoshtari S, Nader SA, Roozbahani Z, Hanafi MG, Farasat M, Saadi Z. Measurement Accuracy of CBCT Versus MDCT for the Linear Distance between the Stapes and Round Window, and the Incudostapedial Joint Thickness for Cochlear Implantation Treatment Planning. Mædica. 2024 Dec;19(4):697.

https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.697

PMCid:PMC11834848

Jain S, Gaurkar S, Deshmukh PT, Khatri M, Kalambe S, Lakhotia P, Chandravanshi D, Disawal A. Applied anatomy of round window and adjacent structures of tympanum related to cochlear implantation. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2019 Aug 29;85(4):43546.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.03.009

PMid:29759935 PMCid:PMC9443052

Jain S, Deshmukh PT, Lakhotia P, Kalambe S, Chandravanshi D, Khatri M. Anatomical study of the facial recess with implications in round window visibility for cochlear implantation: personal observations and review of the literature. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. 2019 Jul;23(03):e28191.

https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676100

PMid:31360247 PMCid:PMC6660289

Bernardo A, Evins AI, Visca A, Stieg PE. The intracranial facial nerve as seen through different surgical windows: an extensive anatomosurgical study. Operative Neurosurgery. 2013 Jun 1;72:ons194207.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827e5844

PMid:23190637

Bernardo A, Evins AI, Visca A, Stieg PE. The intracranial facial nerve as seen through different surgical windows: an extensive anatomosurgical study. Operative Neurosurgery. 2013 Jun 1;72:ons194207.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827e5844

PMid:23190637

Zou J, Hannula M, Lehto K, Feng H, Lähelmä J, Aula AS, Hyttinen J, Pyykkö I. Xray microtomographic confirmation of the reliability of CBCT in identifying the scalar location of cochlear implant electrode after round window insertion. Hearing research. 2015 Aug 1;326:5965.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2015.04.005

PMid:25922206

Zou J, Lähelmä J, Koivisto J, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C, Aarnisalo A, Wolff J, Pyykkö I. Imaging cochlear implantation with round window insertion in human temporal bones and cochlear morphological variation using highresolution cone beam CT. Acta otolaryngologica. 2015 May 4;135(5):46672.

https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2014.993090

PMid:25675836 PMCid:PMC4487572

Downloads

Published

2025-12-16

How to Cite

Sharifishoshtari, S., Saki , N., Roozbahani, Z., Mehrab, Y., & Hesari, A. (2025). Comparison of The Accuracy of CBCT and MDCT Imaging Modalities in Determining the Distance Between the Incus and the Facial Nerve and the Round Window and the Oval Window: A Cadaveric Cross-Sectional Study. Galen Medical Journal, 14(SP1), e3919. https://doi.org/10.31661/gmj.vi.3919