Computed tomography (CT) has been used in the assessment of pediatric hearing loss, but concern regarding radiation risk and increased utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have prompted us toward a more quantitative and sophisticated understanding of CT’s potential diagnostic yield.
Objective
To perform a systematic review to analyze the diagnostic yield of CT for pediatric hearing loss, including subgroup evaluation according to impairment severity and laterality, as well as the specific findings of enlarged vestibular aqueduct and narrow cochlear nerve canal.
Data Sources
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were assessed from the date of their inception to December 2013. In addition, manual searches of bibliographies were performed and topic experts were contacted.
Review Methods
Data from studies describing the use of CT in the diagnostic evaluation of pediatric patients with hearing loss of unknown etiology were evaluated, according to a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent evaluators corroborated the extracted data. Heterogeneity was evaluated according to the I2 statistic.
Results
In 50 criteria-meeting studies, the overall diagnostic yield of CT ranged from 7% to 74%, with the strongest and aggregate data demonstrating a point estimate of 30%. This estimate corresponded to a number needed to image of 4 (range, 2-15). The most commonly identified findings were enlarged vestibular aqueduct and cochlear anomalies. The largest studies showed a 4% to 7% yield for narrow cochlear nerve canal.
Conclusion
These data, along with similar analyses of radiation risk and risks/benefits of sedated MRI, may be used to help guide the choice of diagnostic imaging.
BessFHDodd-MurphyJParkerRA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear. 1998;19:339-354.
2.
AxelssonAAnianssonGCostaO. Hearing loss in school children. A longitudinal study of sensorineural hearing impairment. Scand Audiol. 1987;16:137-143.
3.
HussainTAlghashamAARazaM. Prevalence of hearing impairment in school children. Int J Health Sci. 2011;5:46.
4.
NiskarASKieszakSMHolmesAEstebanERubinCBrodyDJ. Prevalence of hearing loss among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA. 1998;279:1071-1075.
5.
LieuJE. Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:524-530.
6.
StevensonJMcCannDWatkinPWorsfoldSKennedyC; Hearing Outcomes Study Team. The relationship between language development and behaviour problems in children with hearing loss. J Child Psychology Psychiatry. 2010;51:77-83.
7.
StevensonJMcCannDCLawCM. The effect of early confirmation of hearing loss on the behaviour in middle childhood of children with bilateral hearing impairment. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53:269-274.
8.
BarkerDHQuittnerALFinkNEEisenbergLSTobeyEANiparkoJK. Predicting behavior problems in deaf and hearing children: the influences of language, attention, and parent–child communication. Dev Psychopath. 2009;21:373-392.
9.
HoneSWSmithRJ. Medical evaluation of pediatric hearing loss. Laboratory, radiographic, and genetic testing. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2002;35:751-764.
10.
RedbergRFSmith-BindmanR. We are giving ourselves cancer. New York Times. January30, 2014:A27.
HuangBYZdanskiCCastilloM. Pediatric sensorineural hearing loss, part 1: practical aspects for neuroradiologists. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:211-217.
14.
LicameliGKennaMA. Is computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) more useful in the evaluation of pediatric sensorineural hearing loss?Laryngoscope. 2010;120:2358-2359.
15.
CrowtherMLimWCrowtherMA. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood. 2010;116:3140-3146.
16.
ShinJJHartnickCJ. Introduction to evidence-based medicine, levels of evidence, and systematic reviews. In: ShinJJHartnickCJRandolphGW, eds. Evidence-Based Otolaryngology. New York, NY: Springer; 2008:3-12.
17.
UthmanOAOkwunduCIWiysongeCSYoungTClarkeA. Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles?PLoS One. 2013;8:e78517.
18.
US National Library of Medicine. Publication characteristics (publication types)—scope notes. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html. Published 2013. Accessed January 2014.
19.
GallinJIOgnibeneFP. Principles and Practice of Clinical Research. 3rd ed.Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/AP; 2012.
20.
Posada de la PazMGroftSC. Rare Diseases Epidemiology. New York, NY: Springer.
21.
SackettDLStrausSERichardsonWSRosenbergWHaynesRB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed.London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
22.
HopewellSClarkeMLefebvreCSchererR. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000001.
23.
JuniPWitschiABlochREggerM. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.
24.
SharpeD. Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clin Psychol Rev. 1997;17:881-901.
25.
Armijo-OlivoSStilesCRHagenNABiondoPDCummingsGG. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:12-18.
26.
HartlingLOspinaMLiangY. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012.
27.
McClayJETandyRGrundfastK. Major and minor temporal bone abnormalities in children with and without congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:664-671.
28.
DewanKWippoldFJIILieuJEC. Enlarged vestibular aqueduct in pediatric sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:552-558.
29.
HigginsJPThompsonSG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
30.
HigginsJPGreenS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
31.
BorensteinM. Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
32.
FreemanMFTukeyJW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat. 1950;21:607-611.
33.
DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
34.
O’RourkeKDetskyAS. Meta-analysis in medical research: strong encouragement for higher quality in individual research efforts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:1021-1024.
35.
EggerMSmithGDSterneJA. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med. 2001;1:478-484.
36.
WuCCLeeYCChenPJHsuCJ. Predominance of genetic diagnosis and imaging results as predictors in determining the speech perception performance outcome after cochlear implantation in children. Arch Ped Adol Med. 2008;162:269-276.
LinJWChowdhuryNModyA. Comprehensive diagnostic battery for evaluating sensorineural hearing loss in children. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:259-264.
43.
SeicshnaydreMAJohnsonMHHasenstabMSWilliamsGH. Cochlear implants in children: reliability of computed tomography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;107:410-417.
44.
BathAPO’DonoghueGMHollandIMGibbinKP. Paediatric cochlear implantation: how reliable is computed tomography in assessing cochlear patency?Clin Otolaryng All Sci. 1993;18:475-479.
45.
NikolopoulosTPO’DonoghueGMRobinsonKLHollandIMLudmanCGibbinKP. Preoperative radiologic evaluation in cochlear implantation. Am J Otol. 1997;18:S73-S74.
46.
Van WermeskerkenGKADunnebierEAVan OlphenAFVan ZantenBAAlbersFWJ. Audiological performance after cochlear implantation: a 2-year follow-up in children with inner ear malformations. Acta Otolaryng. 2007;127:252-257.
47.
KomatsubaraSHarutaANaganoYKodamaT. Evaluation of cochlear nerve imaging in severe congenital sensorineural hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2007;69:198-202.
48.
KochharAAngeliSIDaveSPLiuXZ. Imaging correlation of children with DFNB1 vs non-DFNB1 hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:665-669.
49.
SongJJChoiHGOhSHChangSOKimCSLeeJH. Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children: the importance of temporal bone computed tomography and audiometric follow-up. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:604-608.
50.
MasudaSUsuiSMatsunagaT. High prevalence of inner-ear and/or internal auditory canal malformations in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:228-232.
51.
HaffeyTFowlerNAnneS. Evaluation of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in the pediatric patient. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:955-958.
52.
BrookhouserPEWorthingtonDWKellyWJ. Unilateral hearing loss in children. Laryngoscope. 1991;101:1264-1272.
53.
BamiouDESavyLO’MahoneyCPhelpsPSirimannaT. Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and its aetiology in childhood: the contribution of computerised tomography in aetiological diagnosis and management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;51:91-99.
54.
CamaEInchesIMuzziE. Temporal bone high-resolution computed tomography in non-syndromic unilateral hearing loss in children. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2012;74:70-77.
55.
PreciadoDALawsonLMaddenC. Improved diagnostic effectiveness with a sequential diagnostic paradigm in idiopathic pediatric sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:610-615.
56.
DeclauFBoudewynsAVan den EndeJPeetersAvan den HeyningP. Etiologic and audiologic evaluations after universal neonatal hearing screening: analysis of 170 referred neonates. Pediatrics. 2008;121:1119-1126.
57.
DenoyelleFMarlinSWeilD. Clinical features of the prevalent form of childhood deafness, DFNB1, due to a connexin-26 gene defect: implications for genetic counselling. Lancet. 1999;353:1298-1303.
58.
GhogomuNUmanskyALieuJEC. Epidemiology of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss with universal newborn hearing screening. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:295-300.
59.
PreciadoDALimLHYCohenAP. A diagnostic paradigm for childhood idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;131:804-809.
60.
LeeKHLarsonDAShottG. Audiologic and temporal bone imaging findings in patients with sensorineural hearing loss and GJB2 mutations. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:554-558.
61.
ChanDKSchrijverIChangKW. Diagnostic yield in the workup of congenital sensorineural hearing loss is dependent on patient ethnicity. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:81-87.
62.
ArjmandEMWebberA. Audiometric findings in children with a large vestibular aqueduct. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:1169-1174.
63.
WileySArjmandEJareenmeinzen-Derr DixonM. Findings from multidisciplinary evaluation of children with permanent hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:1040-1044.
64.
WuCCChenYSChenPJHsuCJ. Common clinical features of children with enlarged vestibular aqueduct and Mondini dysplasia. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:132-137.
65.
AntonelliPJVarelaAEMancusoAA. Diagnostic yield of high-resolution computed tomography for pediatric sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 1999;109:1642-1647.
66.
BillingsKRKennaMA. Causes of pediatric sensorineural hearing loss: yesterday and today. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:517-521.
67.
ArcandPDesrosiersMDubéJAbelaA. The large vestibular aqueduct syndrome and sensorineural hearing loss in the pediatric population. J Otolaryngol. 1991;20:247-250.
68.
AdachiNItoKSakataHYamasobaT. Etiology and one-year follow-up results of hearing loss identified by screening of newborn hearing in Japan. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143:97-100.
69.
SimonsJPMandellDLArjmandEM. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric unilateral and asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:186-192.
70.
MafongDDShinEJLalwaniAK. Use of laboratory evaluation and radiologic imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of children with sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:1-7.
71.
CrossNCStephensSDFrancisMHourihanMDReardonW. Computed tomography evaluation of the inner ear as a diagnostic, counselling and management strategy in patients with congenital sensorineural hearing impairment. Clin Otolaryng All Sci. 1999;24:235-238.
72.
ShustermanDHandlerSDMarshRRBilaniukLTomLW. Usefulness of computed tomographic scan in the evaluation of sensorineural hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;118:501-503.
73.
CoticchiaJMGokhaleAWaltonenJSumerB. Characteristics of sensorineural hearing loss in children with inner ear anomalies. Am J Otolaryngol. 2006;27:33-38.
74.
HuoLWangH. Characteristics and application of inner ear CT in 20 cases of sensorineural hearing loss in children. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132:1261-1265.
75.
ZalzalGHShottSRTowbinRCottonRT. Value of CT scan in the diagnosis of temporal bone diseases in children. Laryngoscope. 1986;96:27-32.
76.
MiyasakaMNosakaSMorimotoNTaijiHMasakiH. CT and MR imaging for pediatric cochlear implantation: emphasis on the relationship between the cochlear nerve canal and the cochlear nerve. Pediatric Rad. 2010;40:1509-1516.
77.
TarshishYLeschinskiAKennaM. Pediatric sudden sensorineural hearing loss: diagnosed causes and response to intervention. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:553-559.
78.
YaegerDMcCallumJLewisK. Outcomes of clinical examination and genetic testing of 500 individuals with hearing loss evaluated through a genetics of hearing loss clinic. Am J Med Genetics. 2006;140:827-836.
79.
WhittemoreKRJrDornanBKLallyTDargieJM. Persistent conductive or mixed hearing loss after the placement of tympanostomy tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76:1465-1470.
80.
OhlmsLAChenAYStewartMGFranklinDJ. Establishing the etiology of childhood hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120:159-163.
81.
Avettand-FenoëlVMarlinSVauloup-FellousC. Congenital cytomegalovirus is the second most frequent cause of bilateral hearing loss in young French children. J Pediatrics. 2013;162:593-599.
82.
BamiouDEPhelpsPSirimannaT. Temporal bone computed tomography findings in bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Arch Dis Child. 2000;82:257-260.
83.
NearyWKentSYeongCCCoyneL. The role of audiological testing and computed tomography in the aetiological investigation of children with permanent unilateral hearing loss. Audiol Med. 2003;1:215-223.
84.
SantosSSgambattiLBuenoAAlbiGSuárezADomínguezMJ. Enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome. A review of 55 paediatric patients [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2010;61:338-344.
85.
ReardonWO’MahoneyCFTrembathRJanHPhelpsPD. Enlarged vestibular aqueduct: a radiological marker of Pendred syndrome, and mutation of the PDS gene. QJM. 2000;93:99-104.
WilkinsAPrabhuSPHuangLOgandoPBKennaMA. Frequent association of cochlear nerve canal stenosis with pediatric sensorineural hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138:383-388.
88.
KanalKMVavilalaMSRaelsonC. Variation in pediatric head CT imaging protocols in Washington state. J Am Coll Rad. 2011;8:242-250.
89.
ChenJXKachniarzBGilaniSShinJJ. Risk of malignancy associated with head and neck CT in children: a systematic review [published online July22, 2014]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
90.
PearceMSSalottiJALittleMP. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:499-505.
91.
MathewsJDForsytheAVBradyZ. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013;346:f2360.
92.
MorrisonD. Management of patients with acoustic neuromas: a Markov decision analysis. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:783-790.
93.
TurnerRGNielsenDW. Application of clinical decision analysis to audiological tests. Ear Hear. 1984;5:125-133.
94.
MakoulGClaymanML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301-312.
95.
BarryMJEdgman-LevitanS. Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780-781.
96.
Oshima LeeEEmanuelEJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:6-8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
