Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T13:57:58.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the cochlea: comparison between otoplan and curved multiplanar reconstruction and literature review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2025

Sushovit Sharma Luitel ,
Manu Malhotra Open the ORCID record for Manu Malhotra [Opens in a new window] ,
Madhu Priya ,
Abhishek Bhardwaj Open the ORCID record for Abhishek Bhardwaj [Opens in a new window] ,
Sailaja Timmaraju ,
Pankaj Sharma ,
Shriya Bhattarai  and
Shreya Mishra
Sushovit Sharma Luitel
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Manu Malhotra*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Madhu Priya
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Abhishek Bhardwaj
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Sailaja Timmaraju
Affiliation:
Education & Training, Med-EL India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India
Pankaj Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Shriya Bhattarai
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
Shreya Mishra
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
*
Corresponding author: Manu Malhotra; Email: manumalhotrallrm@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To compare two high-resolution computerised tomography based pre-surgical planning software in measuring the cochlear dimensions, which can aid in designing/choosing customised cochlear implant electrodes.

Methods

A cross-sectional-observational study was conducted in a tertiary care centre using high-resolution computerised tomography–supported software Otoplan and curved multi-planar reconstruction to find cochlear duct length’s maximum and minimum width/diameter and height in 110 ears (55 subjects). Measurements and the time taken by both techniques were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in the measurements taken with the two software; however, the time taken for analysis was significantly higher for curved multi-planar reconstruction than with Otoplan.

Conclusion

The steep learning curve, the need for an expert radiologist and the difficulty of use are factors that significantly limit the use of curved multi-planar reconstruction. Otoplan requires less time and can be operated even by someone with less expertise in measuring cochlear dimensions for pre-surgical planning and research.

Keywords

cochleacochlear implantscomputer-assisted image processingtomographyX-ray computed

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Manu Malhotra takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper.

References

Meng, J, Li, S, Zhang, F, Li, Q, Qin, Z. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1307–13Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Chen, J, Tan, H, Jiang, M, Wu, Y, Zhang, Z, et al. Cochlear duct length calculation: comparison between using Otoplan and curved multiplanar reconstruction in normal formed cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2021;42:e875–80Google Scholar
Shah, S, Walters, R, Langlie, J, Davies, C, Finberg, A, Tuset, M-P, et al. Systematic review of cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear malformations. PLoS One 2022;17:e0275543Google Scholar
Schurzig, D, Timm, ME, Batsoulis, C, Salcher, R, Sieber, D, Jolly, C, et al. A novel method for clinical cochlear duct length estimation toward patient-specific cochlear implant selection. OTO Open 2018;2:2473974X18800238Google Scholar
Oh, J, Cheon, J-E, Park, J, Choi, YH, Cho, YJ, Lee, S, et al. Cochlear duct length and cochlear distance on preoperative CT: imaging markers for estimating insertion depth angle of cochlear implant electrode. Eur Radiol 2021;31:1260–7Google Scholar
Koch, RW, Ladak, HM, Elfarnawany, M, Agrawal, SK. Measuring cochlear duct length – a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;46:19Google Scholar
Bhavana, K, Timmaraju, S, Kumar, V, Kumar, C, Bharti, B, Prakash, R, et al. Otoplan-based study of intracochlear electrode position through cochleostomy and round window in transcanal Veria technique. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;74:575–81Google Scholar
Paouris, D, Kunzo, S, Goljerová, I. Validation of automatic cochlear measurements using Otoplan software. J Pers Med 2023;13:805Google Scholar
Dutt, SN, Gaur, SK, Vadlamani, S, Nandikur, S. Evolving a radiological protocol for cochlear duct length measurement: three audit cycles. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;74:S3998–4006Google Scholar
Grover, M, Sharma, S, Singh, SN, Kataria, T, Lakhawat, RS, Sharma, MP. Measuring cochlear duct length in Asian population: worth giving a thought. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018;275:725–8Google Scholar
Hardy, M. The length of the organ of Corti in man. Am J Anat 2005;62:291–311Google Scholar
Pollak, A, Felix, H, Schrott, A. Methodological aspects of quantitative study of spiral ganglion cells. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1987;436:37–42Google Scholar
Ulehlová, L, Voldrich, L, Janisch, R. Correlative study of sensory cell density and cochlear length in humans. Hear Res 1987;28:149–51Google Scholar
Sato, H, Sando, I, Takahashi, H. Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea. Computer 3-D measurement. Acta Otolaryngol 1991;111:1037–40Google Scholar
Erixon, E, Rask-Andersen, H. How to predict cochlear length before cochlear implantation surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2013;133:1258–65Google Scholar
Würfel, W, Lanfermann, H, Lenarz, T, Majdani, O. Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res 2014;316:65–72Google Scholar
Walby, AP. Scala tympani measurement. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985;94:393–7Google Scholar
Takagi, A, Sando, I. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction: a method of measuring temporal bone structures including the length of the cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:515–22Google Scholar
Shin, K-J, Lee, J-Y, Kim, J-N, Yoo, J-Y, Shin, C, Song, W-C, et al. Quantitative analysis of the cochlea using three-dimensional reconstruction based on microcomputed tomographic images. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2013;296:1083–8Google Scholar