Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding

1997 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 2993-2996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Philipos C. Loizou ◽  
Dawne Rainey
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Lesinski-Schiedat ◽  
D Manecke ◽  
E Kludt ◽  
T Lenarz ◽  
E Bültmann

2017 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Cisneros Lesser ◽  
Rubens de Brito ◽  
Graziela de Souza Queiroz Martins ◽  
Eloisa Maria Mello Santiago Gebrim ◽  
Ricardo Ferreira Bento

Objective To evaluate cochlear trauma after cochlear implant insertion through a middle fossa approach by means of histologic and imaging studies in temporal bones. Study Design Prospective cadaveric study. Setting University-based temporal bone laboratory. Subjects and Methods Twenty fresh-frozen temporal bones were implanted through a middle cranial fossa basal turn cochleostomy. Ten received a straight electrode and 10 a perimodiolar electrode. Samples were fixed in epoxy resin. Computed tomography (CT) scans determined direction, depth of insertion, and the cochleostomy to round window distance. The samples were polished by a microgrinding technique and microscopically visualized to evaluate intracochlear trauma. Descriptive and analytic statistics were performed to compare both groups. Results The CT scan showed intracochlear insertions in every bone, 10 directed to the middle/apical turn and 10 to the basal turn. In the straight electrode group, the average number of inserted electrodes was 12.3 vs 15.1 for the perimodiolar group ( U = 78, P = .0001). The median insertion depth was larger for the perimodiolar group (14.4 mm vs 12.5 mm, U = 66, P = .021). Only 1 nontraumatic insertion was achieved and 14 samples (70%) had important trauma (Eshraghi grades 3 and 4). No differences were identified comparing position or trauma grades for the 2 electrode models or when comparing trauma depending on the direction of insertion. Conclusion The surgical technique allows a proper intracochlear insertion, but it does not guarantee a correct scala tympani position and carries the risk of important trauma to cochlear microstructures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 900-910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Floris Heutink ◽  
Simone R. de Rijk ◽  
Berit M. Verbist ◽  
Wendy J. Huinck ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Mertens ◽  
V. Van Rompaey ◽  
P. Van de Heyning ◽  
E. Gorris ◽  
V. Topsakal

2005 ◽  
Vol 132 (5) ◽  
pp. 751-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Todt ◽  
Dietmar Basta ◽  
Andreas Eisenschenk ◽  
Arne Ernst

OBJECTIVE: To observe the influence of electrode pull-back after cochlear implant insertion of Nucleus 24 perimodiolar electrodes. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective intraoperative study, we analyzed the impedances, neural response telemetry responses, and the spread of excitation after cochlear implant electrode insertion and compared these data to those obtained after a subsequent, controlled pull-back of the electrode. Postoperative depth of electrode insertion was controlled by x-ray. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS: Six patients (4 male, 2 female; 18 to 69 years) were implanted with a Nucleus 24 (RCA) cochlear implant with a perimodiolar electrode. RESULTS: After a controlled pull-back, a significant decrease of the spread of excitation at the stimuli electrodes 5, 10, 15, and a nonsignificant decrease at stimuli electrode 20 compared to the recordings after the primary normal insertion procedure was found. The mean electric compound action potential amplitude was increased with an apical-to-basal tendency. Impedances remained unchanged by the pull-back. Mean insertion depth at the postoperative x-ray control was 372 degrees (± 10.2). CONCLUSION: Controlled cochlear implant electrode pull-back is a novel technique that optimizes objective intraoperative electrophysiological recordings in patients implanted with a Nucleus 24 perimodiolar cochlear implant by a greater approximation of the electrode to the modiolus. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:751-4.)


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
C. Riemann ◽  
S. Scholz ◽  
H. Sudhoff ◽  
I. Todt

Introduction. The location of the electrode inside the cochlea is important for speech performance. However, many variables, including array length, insertion depth, and individual anatomy, may affect the intracochlear position of the electrode. Insertion deeper than 20 mm and revision surgery are critical situations in which residual hearing and electrode integrity may be at risk. This case report challenges this hypothesis and raises the following question: is it possible to achieve a better speech understanding with an electrode afterload without compromising residual hearing? Case Report. A 73-year-old female patient showed up for evaluation of hearing loss. The patient was operated four times in an external hospital due to cholesteatoma formation in the right ear. Related to a poor aided speech understanding, a CI-surgery was performed. 5 months after the surgery, the subject returned with poor speech understanding. A revision surgery was performed, where the first white marker of the electrode was seen in the round window (20 mm). The electrode was inserted 4 mm deeper into the cochlea. After six and twelve months, the results of the Freiburger monosyllabic speech test improved till 25% and 45%, respectively. Discussion. Hearing preservation is possible with a revisional deeper insertion from 20 mm to 24 mm. In this case, a partial obliteration of an open cavity made the electrode surgically easily accessible. This allowed the deeper insertion during the revision surgery. In a regular surgical field with a posterior tympanotomy, the revision surgery is more challenging and brings the electrode into the risk of an iatrogenic destruction. Conclusion. This case of an electrode afterload after having inserted the electrode initially to mm, demonstrates that hearing can be preserved and speech perception can improve after performing this maneuver.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 571-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Brant ◽  
Steven J. Eliades ◽  
Hannah Kaufman ◽  
Jinbo Chen ◽  
Michael J. Ruckenstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document