Search

Purpose The objective of the study was to evaluate the proposed cochlear duct length estimation based on the cochlear ‘A value’. Furthermore, we assessed the interobserver variability between radiology and otolaryngology attending physicians and otolaryngology trainees. Methods Thirteen pediatric cochlear implant candidates were retrospectively analyzed by three otolaryngology physicians (attending physician, second year, and fourth year trainees) and a radiology attending. The cochlear duct length was calculated based on the formula of Grover et al. The differences in acquired measurements between observers were compared using the Wilcoxon matched signed-rank test. Results The differences in measurements between the attending otolaryngologist and radiologist were not statistically different, while several significant differences were observed with regard to measurements of attending doctors compared to both residents. In particular, a significant difference between the second year otolaryngology resident and otolaryngology and radiology attending was observed for one side (right ear p = 0.034 and p = 0.012, respectively). Moreover, the fourth year resident calculated significantly different cochlear duct measurements when compared to the attending otolaryngologist (left ear p = 0.014) and radiologist (right ear p = 0.047). Interestingly, differently experienced otolaryngology residents provided significantly different measurements for both ears. Conclusions Based on these results, cochlear duct length measurement according to the proposed method may be a reliable and cost-effective method. Indeed, otolaryngology training may be sufficient to provide measurements comparable to radiologists. On the other hand, additional efforts should be invested during otolaryngology training in terms of the evaluation of radiological imaging which may increase the capabilities of otolaryngology residents in this regard.

Background: Measurements of electrode impedance values are routinely performed after cochlear implantation. The primary objective of the study was to determine if pediatric, prelingually deafened patients with different postoperative performances showed significantly different impedance values one year after implantation. Methods: This study comprised 42 pediatric cochlear implant recipients provided with the device in a single academic tertiary referral center between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2016. Medical chart analysis was performed in order to assess evolution of impedance values during the first postoperative year on a monthly basis. Electrode impedance values measurements one year postoperatively were compared between children with successful and unsuccessful auditory and language skills development assessed using the EARS protocol (a name of a performance test). Furthermore, values were compared among recipients of different implant types and among different cochlear segments. Results: A gradual rise of average impedance values was found during the first months of implant use (1st month, 7.32 k&Omega, 3rd month, 7.86 k&Omega, ) with the peak at the 4th postoperative month (7.96 k&Omega, ), followed by a gradual decrease towards the 12th month (6th month, 7.62 k&Omega, 12th month, 6.86 k&Omega, ). Lower values at the 12th postoperative month were observed in recipients with successful development compared to patients presented with unsuccessful development (6.22 k&Omega, vs. 7.82 k&Omega, p = 0.001). Mean impedance values were different when compared among cochlear segments and among different implant types. Conclusion: High electrode impedance values one year after implantation in pediatric patients may imply insufficient auditory and language skills development. Further studies are needed in order to validate our results.