Article Sidebar
Date Published:
11/07/2022
Online Published:
11/07/2022
Abstract Views: 70
Views PDF: 48
Views PDF: 48
Issue
Section
Scientific research
How to Cite
Le, V. K., Nguyen, V. T., Vu, T. Q., Doan, T. H. H., Nguyen, T. H. A., Pham, M. T., & Vu, L. (2022). Assessment of scannographic and magnetic resonance caracteristics of 35 cases as bilan before cochlear implant. Vietnamese Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 7, 148-152. https://doi.org/10.55046/vjrnm.7.247.2012
Assessment of scannographic and magnetic resonance caracteristics of 35 cases as bilan before cochlear implant
Main Article Content
Abstract
SUMMARY
Objective: Bilan of scannographic and magnetic resonance imaging features for 35 candidates of cochlear implant (CI).
Materials and methods: 35 cases suffering from profound deafness, undergone screening for CI from Jan 2011 to April 2012. Temporal CT scanner, Brain and inner ear MR imaging were performed.
Results: 35 patients, Male/female is 18/17, average age is 8. None has outer ear abnormality. Six cases (17.1%) have malformation of middle ear. Ten cases (28.6) suffer from acute otitis media. Two cases with inner malformation and three cases with labirynthitis.
Conclusions: CT scanner and MR imaging play an important role in bilan of CI.
Article Details
References
TÀI LIỆU THAM KHẢO
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant.
2. Connor, S.E., et al. (2009), “CT and MR imaging cochlear distance measurements may predict cochlear implant length required for a 360 degrees insertion”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 30(7): p. 1425-30.
3. Johnson, M.H., et al. (1995), “CT of postmeningitic deafness: observations and predictive value for cochlear implants in children”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 16(1): p. 103-9.
4. Lane, J.I., et al. (2004), “3-T imaging of the cochlear nerve and labyrinth in cochlear-implant candidates: 3D fast recovery fast spin-echo versus 3D constructive interference in the steady state techniques”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 25(4): p. 618-22.
5. Shpizner, B.A., et al. (1995), “Postoperative imaging of the multichannel cochlear implant”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 16(7): p. 1517-24.
6. Verbist, B.M., et al. (2005), “Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 26(2): p. 424-9.
7. Verbist, B.M., et al. (2008), “Evaluation of 4 multisection CT systems in postoperative imaging of a cochlear implant: a human cadaver and phantom study”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 29(7): p. 1382-8.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant.
2. Connor, S.E., et al. (2009), “CT and MR imaging cochlear distance measurements may predict cochlear implant length required for a 360 degrees insertion”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 30(7): p. 1425-30.
3. Johnson, M.H., et al. (1995), “CT of postmeningitic deafness: observations and predictive value for cochlear implants in children”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 16(1): p. 103-9.
4. Lane, J.I., et al. (2004), “3-T imaging of the cochlear nerve and labyrinth in cochlear-implant candidates: 3D fast recovery fast spin-echo versus 3D constructive interference in the steady state techniques”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 25(4): p. 618-22.
5. Shpizner, B.A., et al. (1995), “Postoperative imaging of the multichannel cochlear implant”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 16(7): p. 1517-24.
6. Verbist, B.M., et al. (2005), “Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 26(2): p. 424-9.
7. Verbist, B.M., et al. (2008), “Evaluation of 4 multisection CT systems in postoperative imaging of a cochlear implant: a human cadaver and phantom study”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 29(7): p. 1382-8.