Objectives Knowledge about cochlear duct length (CDL) may assist electrode choice in cochlear implantation (CI). However, no gold standard for clinical applicable estimation of CDL exists. The aim of this study is (1) to determine the most reliable radiological imaging method and imaging processing software for measuring CDL from clinical routine imaging and (2) to accurately predict the insertion depth of the CI electrode. Methods Twenty human temporal bones were examined using different sectional imaging techniques (high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT] and cone beam computed tomography [CBCT]). CDL was measured using three methods: length estimation using (1) a dedicated preclinical 3D reconstruction software, (2) the established A-value method, and (3) a clinically approved otosurgical planning software. Temporal bones were implanted with a 31.5-mm CI electrode and measurements were compared to a reference based on the CI electrode insertion angle measured by radiographs in Stenvers projection (CDLreference). Results A mean cochlear coverage of 74% (SD 7.4%) was found. The CDLreference showed significant differences to each other method (p < 0.001). The strongest correlation to the CDLreference was found for the otosurgical planning software-based method obtained from HRCT (CDLSW-HRCT; r = 0.87, p < 0.001) and from CBCT (CDLSW-CBCT; r = 0.76, p < 0.001). Overall, CDL was underestimated by each applied method. The inter-rater reliability was fair for the CDL estimation based on 3D reconstruction from CBCT (CDL3D-CBCT; intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.43), good for CDL estimation based on 3D reconstruction from HRCT (CDL3D-HRCT; ICC = 0.71), poor for CDL estimation based on the A-value method from HRCT (CDLA-HRCT; ICC = 0.29), and excellent for CDL estimation based on the A-value method from CBCT (CDLA-CBCT; ICC = 0.87) as well as for the CDLSW-HRCT (ICC = 0.94), CDLSW-CBCT (ICC = 0.94) and CDLreference (ICC = 0.87). Conclusions All approaches would have led to an electrode choice of rather too short electrodes. Concerning treatment decisions based on CDL measurements, the otosurgical planning software-based method has to be recommended. The best inter-rater reliability was found for CDLA-CBCT, for CDLSW-HRCT, for CDLSW-CBCT, and for CDLreference. Key Points • Clinically applicable calculations using high-resolution CT and cone beam CT underestimate the cochlear size. • Ten percent of cochlear duct length need to be added to current calculations in order to predict the postoperative CI electrode position. • The clinically approved otosurgical planning software-based method software is the most suitable to estimate the cochlear duct length and shows an excellent inter-rater reliability.

Purpose A narrow bony internal auditory canal (IAC) may be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and poorer hearing performances after cochlear implantation. However, definitions for a narrow IAC vary widely and commonly, qualitative grading or two-dimensional measures are used to characterize a narrow IAC. We aimed to refine the definition of a narrow IAC by determining IAC volume in both control patients and patients with inner ear malformations (IEMs). Methods In this multicentric study, we included high-resolution CT (HRCT) scans of 128 temporal bones (85 with IEMs: cochlear aplasia, n = 11; common cavity, n = 2; cochlear hypoplasia type, n = 19; incomplete partition type I/III, n = 8/8; Mondini malformation, n = 16; enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome, n = 19; 45 controls). The IAC diameter was measured in the axial plane and the IAC volume was measured by semi-automatic segmentation and three-dimensional reconstruction. Results In controls, the mean IAC diameter was 5.5 mm (SD 1.1 mm) and the mean IAC volume was 175.3 mm3 (SD 52.6 mm3). Statistically significant differences in IAC volumes were found in cochlear aplasia (68.3 mm3, p < 0.0001), IPI (107.4 mm3, p = 0.04), and IPIII (277.5 mm3, p = 0.0004 mm3). Inter-rater reliability was higher in IAC volume than in IAC diameter (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92 vs. 0.77). Conclusions Volumetric measurement of IAC in cases of IEMs reduces measurement variability and may add to classifying IEMs. Since a hypoplastic IAC can be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and sensorineural hearing loss, radiologic assessment of the IAC is crucial in patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation.

Objective: A "gold standard" for quantitatively diagnosing inner ear malformations (IEMs) and a consensus on normative measurements are lacking. Reference ranges and cutoff values of inner ear dimensions may add in distinguishing IEM types. This study evaluates the volumes of the cochlea and vestibular system in different types of IEM. Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Tertiary academic center. Patients: High-resolution CT scans of 115 temporal bones (70 with IEM; cochlear hypoplasia [CH]; n = 19), incomplete partition (IP) Types I and III (n = 16), IP Type II with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct (Mondini malformation; n = 16), enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome (n = 19), and 45 controls. Interventions: Volumetry by software-based, semiautomatic segmentation, and 3D reconstruction. Main Outcome Measures: Differences in volumes among IEM and between IEM types and controls; interrater reliability.Results: Compared with controls (mean volume, 78.0 mm 3 ), only CH showed a significantly different cochlear volume (mean volume, 30.2 mm 3 ; p < 0.0001) among all types of IEM. A cutoff value of 60 mm 3 separated 100% of CH cases from controls. Compared with controls, significantly larger vestibular system volumes were found in Mondini malformation (mean difference, 22.9 mm 3 ; p = 0.009) and IP (mean difference, 24.1 mm 3 ; p = 0.005). In contrast, CH showed a significantly smaller vestibular system volume (mean difference, 41.1 mm 3 ; p < 0.0001). A good interrater reliability was found for all three-dimensional measurements (ICC = 0.86-0.91). Conclusion: Quantitative reference values for IEM obtained in this study were in line with existing qualitative diagnostic characteristics. A cutoff value less than 60 mm 3 may indicate an abnormally small cochlea. Normal reference values for volumes of the cochlea and vestibular system may aid in diagnosing IEM.