Retrospective cross-sectional study demonstrates canal roof stability across age in clinical patients, indicating that canal dehiscence stems from developmental factors rather than adult bone loss.
Objective: To quantify superior semicircular canal (SSC) roof thickness using ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) and to evaluate its cross-sectional association with age and sex. Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: 576 ears from 288 consecutive patients (mean age 42.7±27.3 y; range 0–89; 154 males, 134 females) undergoing clinically indicated temporal bone PCD-CT. Main outcome measure: Minimal SSC roof thickness on Pöschl-plane reconstructions (0.2 mm slice thickness), with intrarater and inter-rater reliability assessed. Results: Reliability was excellent (intrarater ICC 0.966; inter-rater ICC 0.939). A linear mixed-effects model in the full cohort revealed a significant age × sex interaction (B=0.004, P =0.016): females showed no cross-sectional age-related change (B=0.000 mm/year), while males showed a small positive association (B=0.004 mm/year; ∼0.04 mm/decade). In a prespecified pediatric subgroup (<20 years; 84 patients), males showed significant cross-sectional thickening (+0.031 mm/year, P =0.001) and a similar trend in females (+0.020 mm/year), and females had thicker SSC roofs than males (0.88 vs. 0.70 mm at 7.7 years; P =0.039). The interaction was nonsignificant within both the pediatric ( P =0.431) and adult ( P =0.204) subgroups separately, indicating that the full-cohort interaction likely reflects the developmental phase difference between childhood and adulthood. Conclusions: SSC roof thickness does not decrease with age during adulthood, while active cross-sectional thickening occurs during childhood, suggesting that bony coverage is largely established during the first two decades of life. Adult-onset SSCDS likely reflects the interaction between congenitally thin coverage and secondary factors—intracranial pressure dynamics, mechanical events, and biomechanical changes—rather than progressive resorption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sakaida et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: