rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_0e489bb1-2191-512e-9cb0-ad0e47acc01b">141]. Zou et al. [7] has recently demonstrated the feasibility of using CARS microscopy to display the specific molecular morphology of cholesteatoma that has the potential to be integrated in a novel endoscope for cholesteatoma imaging in the clinic. There are reports on developing CARS endoscopes, although the system needs further improvement [142, 143].
Conclusions
Temporal bone imaging should be sensitive enough to reveal functional disorders after trauma, inflammatory diseases, space occupying lesions such as cholesteatoma or vestibular schwannoma, changes in bone density such as otosclerosis, disruption of ossicular chain, various congenital anomalies, vascular malformations and position and insertion depth of cochlear implants. MDCT and CBCT have the benefit that they accurately describe the bony structures of the temporal bone. During CBCT imaging, the dose is applied to a very narrow section of the body with minimum exposure of the non-targeting area to radiation, and the total X-ray dose is lower compared with MDCT. In addition, CBCT’s rapid data acquisition means that only a low dose of radiation is created during the imaging. MRI, especially at a field strength of 3T, is excellent in revealing changes of the soft tissues and fluid spaces in the temporal bone. The 3T MRI allows relatively accurate visualization of endolymphatic hydrops and even the membranous structures of the inner ear. Modern trends with targeted imaging of the inner ear may provide possibilities to visualize inner ear pathologies that can be assessed today only on histology. The recent imaging possibilities to explore inner ear fluid spaces are especially encouraging and contribute to clinical practice by defining Hydropic Ear Disease as a new entity.
References
1DeMarcantonio M, Choo DI: Radiographic evaluation of children with hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2015;48:913–932.
2Counter SA, Damberg P, Aski SN, Nagy K, Berglin CE, Laurell G: Experimental fusion of contrast enhanced high-field magnetic resonance imaging and high-resolution micro-computed tomography in imaging the mouse inner ear. Open Neuroimag J 2015;9:7–12.
3Pitris C, Saunders KT, Fujimoto JG, Brezinski ME: High-resolution imaging of the middle ear with optical coherence tomography: a feasibility study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127:637–642.
4Lin J, Staecker H, Jafri MS: Optical coherence tomography imaging of the inner ear: a feasibility study with implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:341–346.
5Cho NH, Jang JH, Jung W, Kim J: In vivo imaging of middle-ear and inner-ear microstructures of a mouse guided by SD-OCT combined with a surgical microscope. Opt Express 2014;22:8985–8995.
6Zou J, Lahelma J, Koivisto J, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C, Aarnisalo A, et al: Imaging cochlear implantation with round window insertion in human temporal bones and cochlear morphological variation using high-resolution cone beam CT. Acta Otolaryngol 2015;135:466–472.
7Zou J, Isomäki A, Hirvonen T, Aarnisalo A, Jero J, Pyykkö I: Label-free visualization of cholesteatoma in the mastoid and tympanic membrane using CARS microscopy. J Otol 2016;11:127–133.
8Zou J, Pyykko I, Hyttinen J: Inner ear barriers to nanomedicine-augmented drug delivery and imaging. J Otol 2016;11:165–177.
9Giesemann A, Hofmann E: Some remarks on imaging of the inner ear: options and limitations. Clin Neuroradiol 2015;25(suppl 2):197–203.
10Shibata T, Nagano T: Applying very high resolution microfocus X-ray CT and 3-D reconstruction to the human auditory apparatus. Nat Med 1996;2:933–935.
11Vogel U: New approach for 3D imaging and geometry modeling of the human inner ear. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1999;61:259–267.
12Maillot O, Attye A, Boyer E, Heck O, Kastler A, Grand S, et al: Post traumatic deafness: a pictorial review of CT and MRI findings. Insights Imaging 2016;7:341–350.
13Lane JI, Lindell EP, Witte RJ, DeLone DR, Driscoll CL: Middle and inner ear: improved depiction with multiplanar reconstruction of volumetric CT data. Radiographics 2006;26:115–124.
14Fatterpekar GM, Doshi AH, Dugar M, Delman BN, Naidich TP, Som PM: Role of 3D CT in the evaluation of the temporal bone. Radiographics 2006;26(suppl 1):S117-S132.
15Gnagi SH, Baker TR, Pollei TR, Barrs DM: Analysis of intraoperative radiographic electrode placement during cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1045–1047.
16Carlson ML, Leng S, Diehn FE, Witte RJ, Krecke KN, Grimes J, et al: Cochlear implant electrode localization using an ultra-high resolution scan mode on conventional 64-slice and new generation 192-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:978–984.
17Tavassolie TS, Penninger RT, Zuniga MG, Minor LB, Carey JP: Multislice computed tomography in the diagnosis of superior canal dehiscence: how much error, and how to minimize it? Otol Neurotol 2012;33:215–222.
18Bremke M, Luers JC, Anagiotos A, Gostian AO, Dorn F, Kabbasch C, et al: Comparison of digital volume tomography and high-resolution computed tomography in detecting superior semicircular canal dehiscence – a temporal bone study. Acta Otolaryngol 2015;135:901–906.
19Brantberg K, Greitz D, Pansell T: Subarcuate venous malformation causing audio-vestibular symptoms similar to those in superior canal dehiscence syndrome. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:993–997.
20National Cancer Institute: Radiation Risks and Pediatric Computed Tomography (CT): A Guide for Health Care Providers. 2012. https://wwwcancergov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/pediatric-ct-scans.
21Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W: Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289–296.
22Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al: Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective
