Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Enhancing Electrode Location Assessment in Cochlear Implantation via Computed Tomography Image Fusion
Published on: January 17, 2025
Estimation of Cochlear Implant Insertion Depth Using 2D-3D Registration of Postoperative X-Ray and Preoperative CT
George S Liu1, Shayna P Cooperman, Caio A Neves
1Stanford University, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305.
Objective:
To improve estimation of cochlear implant (CI) insertion depth in postoperative skull x-rays using synthesized information from preoperative CT scans.
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort.
Setting:
Tertiary referral center.
Patients:
Ten adult cochlear implant recipients with preoperative and postoperative temporal bone computed tomography (CT)scans and postoperative skull x-ray imaging.
Interventions:
Postoperative x-rays and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) from preoperative CTs were registered using 3D Slicer and MATLAB to enhance localization of the round window and modiolus. Angular insertion depth (AID) was estimated in unmodified and registration-enhanced x-rays and DRRs in the cochlear view. Linear insertion depth (LID) was estimated in registered images by two methods that localized the proximal CI electrode or segmented the cochlea. Ground truth assessments were made in postoperative CTs.
Main Outcome Measures:
Errors of insertion depth estimates were calculated relative to ground truth measurements and compared with paired t t ests. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess inter-rater reliability of two reviewer's measurements of AID in unmodified x-rays.
Results:
In postoperative x-rays, AID estimation errors were similar with and without registration enhancement (-1.3 ± 20.7° and -4.8 ± 24.9°, respectively; mean ± SD; p = 0.6). AID estimation in unmodified x-rays demonstrated strong interrater agreement (ρ = 0.79, p < 0.05) and interrater differences (-15.0 ± 35.3°) comparable to estimate errors. Registering images allowed measurement of AID in the cochlear view with estimation errors of 14.6 ± 30.6° and measurement of LID, with estimate errors that were similar between proximal electrode localization and cochlear segmentation methods (-0.9 ± 2.2 mm and -2.1 ± 2.7 mm, respectively; p = 0.3).
Conclusions:
2D-3D image registration allows measurement of AID in the cochlear view and LID using postoperative x-rays and preoperative CT imaging. The use of this technique may reduce the need for postimplantation CT studies to assess these metrics of CI electrode position. Further work is needed to improve the accuracy of AID assessment in the postoperative x-ray view with registered images compared with established methods.
