BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluating abnormalities of the temporal bone requires high-spatial-resolution CT imaging. Our aim was to assess the performance of photon-counting-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions for temporal bone imaging and compare the results with those of energy-integrating-detector ultra-high-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies were conducted to quantify spatial resolution of the ultra-high-resolution mode on a prototype photon-counting-detector CT scanner and an energy-integrating-detector CT scanner that uses a comb filter. Ten cadaveric temporal bones were scanned on both systems with the radiation dose matched to that of the clinical examinations. Images were reconstructed using a sharp kernel, 0.6-mm (minimum) thickness for energy-integrating-detector CT, and 0.6- and 0.25-mm (minimum) thicknesses for photon-counting-detector CT. Image noise was measured and compared using adjusted 1-way ANOVA. Images were reviewed blindly by 3 neuroradiologists to assess the incudomallear joint, stapes footplate, modiolus, and overall image quality. The ranking results for each specimen and protocol were compared using the Friedman test. The Krippendorff α was used for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Photon-counting-detector CT showed an increase of in-plane resolution compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. At the same thickness (0.6 mm), images from photon-counting-detector CT had significantly lower (P < .001) image noise compared with energy-integrating-detector CT. Readers preferred the photon-counting-detector CT images to the energy-integrating-detector images for all 3 temporal bone structures. A moderate interreader agreement was observed with the Krippendorff α = 0.50. For overall image quality, photon-counting-detector CT image sets were ranked significantly higher than images from energy-integrating-detector CT (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantially better delineation of fine anatomy for the temporal bones scanned with the ultra-high-resolution mode of photon-counting-detector CT compared with the ultra-high-resolution mode of a commercial energy-integrating-detector CT scanner.

Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_3) for the target population of each recommendation listed below. STEREOTACTIC RADIOSURGERY: Question 1: What is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing following stereotactic radiosurgery utilizing modern dose planning, at 2, 5, and 10 yr following treatment? Recommendation: Level 3 : Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering stereotactic radiosurgery should be counseled that there is moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr, and moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 10 yr. Question 2: Among patients with AAO-HNS (American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery hearing classification) class A or GR (Gardner-Robertson hearing classification) grade I hearing at baseline, what is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing following stereotactic radiosurgery, utilizing modern dose planning, at 2, 5, and 10 yr following treatment? Recommendation: Level 3 : Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering stereotactic radiosurgery should be counseled that there is a high probability (>75%-100%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr, and moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 10 yr. Question 3: What patient- and tumor-related factors influence progression to nonserviceable hearing following stereotactic radiosurgery using ≤13 Gy to the tumor margin? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering stereotactic radiosurgery should be counseled regarding the probability of successful hearing preservation based on the following prognostic data: the most consistent prognostic features associated with maintenance of serviceable hearing are good preoperative word recognition and/or pure tone thresholds with variable cut-points reported, smaller tumor size, marginal tumor dose ≤12 Gy, and cochlear dose ≤4 Gy. Age and sex are not strong predictors of hearing preservation outcome. MICROSURGERY: Question 4: What is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing following microsurgical resection of small to medium-sized sporadic vestibular schwannomas early after surgery, at 2, 5, and 10 yr following treatment? Recommendation: Level 3 : Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering microsurgical resection should be counseled that there is a moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation immediately following surgery, moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr, and moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 10 yr. Question 5: Among patients with AAO-HNS class A or GR grade I hearing at baseline, what is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing following microsurgical resection of small to medium-sized sporadic vestibular schwannomas early after surgery, at 2, 5, and 10 yr following treatment? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering microsurgical resection should be counseled that there is a moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation immediately following surgery, moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr, and moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 10 yr. Question 6: What patient- and tumor-related factors influence progression to nonserviceable hearing following microsurgical resection of small to medium-sized sporadic vestibular schwannomas? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering microsurgical resection should be counseled regarding the probability of successful hearing preservation based on the following prognostic data: the most consistent prognostic features associated with maintenance of serviceable hearing are good preoperative word recognition and/or pure tone thresholds with variable cut-points reported, smaller tumor size commonly less than 1 cm, and presence of a distal internal auditory canal cerebrospinal fluid fundal cap. Age and sex are not strong predictors of hearing preservation outcome. CONSERVATIVE OBSERVATION: Question 7: What is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing with conservative observation of vestibular schwannomas at 2, 5, and 10 yr following diagnosis? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering observation should be counseled that there is a high probability (>75%-100%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr, and moderately low probability (>25%-50%) of hearing preservation at 10 yr. Question 8: Among patients with AAO-HNS class A or GR grade I hearing at baseline, what is the overall probability of maintaining serviceable hearing with conservative observation at 2 and 5 yr following diagnosis? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering stereotactic radiosurgery should be counseled that there is a high probability (>75%-100%) of hearing preservation at 2 yr, and moderately high probability (>50%-75%) of hearing preservation at 5 yr. Insufficient data were available to determine the probability of hearing preservation at 10 yr for this population subset. Question 9: What patient and tumor-related factors influence progression to nonserviceable hearing during conservative observation? Recommendation: Level 3: Individuals who meet these criteria and are considering observation should be counseled regarding probability of successful hearing preservation based on the following prognostic data: the most consistent prognostic features associated with maintenance of serviceable hearing are good preoperative word recognition and/or pure tone thresholds with variable cut-points reported, as well as nongrowth of the tumor. Tumor size at the time of diagnosis, age, and sex do not predict future development of nonserviceable hearing during observation. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-manage-ment-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_3.

Objective To evaluate the safety and image quality of 1.5-T MRI in patients with cochlear implants and retained internal magnets. Study Design Retrospective case series from 2012 to 2014. Setting Single tertiary academic referral center. Patients All cochlear implant recipients undergoing 1.5-T MRI without internal magnet removal. Intervention(s) MRI after tight headwrap application. Main Outcome Measures Patient tolerance, complications, and characteristics of imaging artifact. Results Nineteen ears underwent a total of 34 MRI scans. Two patients did not tolerate imaging with the headwrap in place and required magnet removal before rescanning. One subject experienced two separate episodes of polarity reversal in the same device from physical realignment (i.e., flipping) of the internal magnet requiring surgical repositioning. Three patients were discovered to have canting of the internal magnet after imaging. In all three cases, the magnet could be reseated by applying gentle firm pressure to the scalp until the magnet “popped” back into place. These patients continue to use their device without difficulty and have not required surgical replacement. In patients receiving head MRI, the ipsilateral internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle could be visualized without difficulty in 94% of cases. There were no episodes of cochlear implant device failure or soft tissue complications. Conclusion Under controlled conditions, 1.5-T MRI can be successfully performed in most patients without the need for cochlear implant magnet removal. In nearly all cases, imaging artifact does not impede evaluation of the ipsilateral skull base. Patients should be counseled regarding the risk of internal magnet movement that may occur in up to 15% of cases, even with tight headwrap application. If internal magnet polarity reversal occurs, a trial of reversing the external magnet can be considered. If canting or mild displacement of the internal magnet occurs, an attempt at reseating can be made by applying gentle firm pressure to the scalp over the internal magnet. If conservative measures fail, the magnet should be surgically repositioned to minimize interruption of device use and to prevent scalp complications.