Introduction: Third-window syndromes (TWS), including superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD) and enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA), cause paradoxical auditory and vestibular symptoms such as apparent conductive loss, bone-conduction hyperacusis, and sound- or pressure-induced vertigo. Numerical modeling provides a unique means to explore the mechanical consequences of lesion size, geometry, and location.
Methods: A structured search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar (July 2025) identified nine studies applying lumped-element, finite-element (FE), or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models to SSCD or EVA, which were analyzed qualitatively.
Results: Lumped-element models reproduced air–bone gaps and bone-conduction hypersensitivity, showing that lesion size and location modulate functional severity. FE and CFD simulations offered anatomically detailed insights, revealing that dehiscence geometry strongly shapes basilar membrane motion, that sound-induced endolymphatic streaming can account for the Tullio phenomenon, and that large vestibular aqueducts transmit intracranial pressure fluctuations. Validation across studies remained limited.
Conclusion: Numerical models provide complementary insights into TWS. Lumped-element approaches are rapid and clinically interpretable, while FE and CFD enable detailed exploration of fluid–structure interactions. Patient-specific simulations may eventually support individualized diagnosis and surgical planning but remain speculative.
LazarouISiderisGPapadimitriouN, et al.Third window syndrome: an up-to-date systematic review of causes, diagnosis, and treatment. J Audiol Otol2025; 29(2): 86–94.
2.
PangJWangYChengY, et al.Conductive hearing loss in large vestibular aqueduct syndrome —clinical observations and proof-of-concept predictive modeling by a biomechanical approach. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2021; 146: 110752.
3.
MerchantSNRosowskiJJ. Conductive hearing loss caused by third-window lesions of the inner ear. Otol Neurotol2008; 29(3): 282–289.
4.
MinorLB. Superior canal dehiscence syndrome. Am J Otol2000; 21(1): 9–19.
5.
ZhouGGopenQPoeDS. Clinical and diagnostic characterization of canal dehiscence syndrome: a great otologic mimicker. Otol Neurotol2007; 28(7): 920–926.
6.
CareyJPMinorLBNagerGT. Dehiscence or thinning of bone overlying the superior semicircular canal in a temporal bone survey. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2000; 126(2): 137–147.
7.
MinorLBSolomonDZinreichJS, et al.Sound- and/or pressure-induced vertigo due to bone dehiscence of the superior semicircular canal. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1998; 124(3): 249–258.
8.
RosowskiJJSongerJENakajimaHH, et al.Clinical, experimental, and theoretical investigations of the effect of superior semicircular canal dehiscence on hearing mechanisms. Otol Neurotol2004; 25(3): 323–332.
9.
SongerJE. Superior semicircular canal dehiscence: Auditory mechanisms [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. MIT Libraries. 2006.
10.
TongBSHeZYDingCR, et al.Mechanisms of hearing loss in a Guinea pig model of superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Neural Plast2018; 2018: 1258341.
11.
StenfeltS. Investigation of mechanisms in bone conduction hyperacusis with third window pathologies based on model predictions. Front Neurol2020; 11: 966.
12.
ChenZLuoMZhouC, et al.Fluid-solid coupling model and biological features of large vestibular aqueduct syndrome. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1106371.
13.
GrieserBJKleiserLObristD. Identifying mechanisms behind the Tullio phenomenon: a computational study based on first principles. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol2016; 17(2): 103–118.
14.
KimNSteeleCRPuriaS. Superior-semicircular-canal dehiscence: effects of location, shape, and size on sound conduction. Hear Res2013; 301: 72–84.
15.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
16.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169(7): 467–473.
17.
SongerJRosowskiJ. A mechano-acoustic model of the effect of superior canal dehiscence on hearing in chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am2007; 122: 943–951.
18.
GuanXChengYSGalaiyaDJ, et al.Bone-conduction hyperacusis induced by superior canal dehiscence in human: the underlying mechanism. Sci Rep2020; 10(1): 16564.
19.
HoMLMoonisGHalpinCF, et al.Spectrum of third window abnormalities: semicircular canal dehiscence and beyond. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2017; 38(1): 2–9.
20.
NiestenMEFStiegerCLeeDJ, et al.Assessment of the effects of superior canal dehiscence location and size on intracochlear sound pressures. Audiol Neurootol2015; 20(1): 62–71.
21.
LiangJMotallebzadehHPuriaS, et al.Finite-element modeling of the effect of superior canal dehiscence on intracochlear pressures in bone conduction. AIP Conf Proc2024; 3062: 040010. Disponible sur: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AIPC.3062d0010L
22.
WithnellRHGowdyLE. An analysis of the acoustic input impedance of the ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol2013; 14(5): 611–622.
23.
StenfeltSHatoNGoodeRL. Fluid volume displacement at the oval and round windows with air and bone conduction stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 115(2): 797–812.
24.
StenfeltS. Inner ear contribution to bone conduction hearing in the human. Hear Res2015; 329: 41–51.
25.
GopenQRosowskiJJMerchantSN. Anatomy of the normal human cochlear aqueduct with functional implications. Hear Res1997; 107(1-2): 9–22.
26.
NiGElliottSJAyatM, et al.Modelling cochlear mechanics. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 150637.
