Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the surgical and audiological outcomes with two perimodiolar electrode arrays (Nucleus 512-Contour Advance® y Nucleus 532-Slim Perimodiolar®) and a straight electrode array (Nucleus 422/522).

Methods

Patients were retrospectively selected from our cochlear implant program database. Only patients with a history of bilateral, sensorineural postlingually profound hearing loss who underwent cochlear implant surgery with either a N512, a N532 or a N422 were included. Throughout a year of follow-up, pure tone audiometry (PTA), speech perception, Impedances and T–C Thresholds levels were analyzed. Surgical data were also analyzed.

Results

66 patients were included (19-CI532, 20-CI512 and 27-CI422). The most common type of cochlea access with the N532, N512 and N422 was through an extended round window, a promontorial cochleostomy and a pure round window, respectively. No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition. No significant differences were seen in the levels of hearing preservation at frequencies of 250 and 500. The average values of the impedances were significantly higher in the CI group N532 and N422 than in the N512. The mean values of the T and C levels were significantly lower in the CI groups N532 and N422 compared with the N512.

Conclusions

No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition; however, a faster acquisition of auditory results were observed in the group of patients treated with the CI N532. The type of electrode array influences in the type of cochleostomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK et al (2008) Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 29(7):920–928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. House WF, Urban J (1973) Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlear in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 82(4):504–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kenney DW (1987) Multichannel intracochlear electrodes: mechanism of insertion trauma. Laryngoscope 97:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hughes ML, Abbas PJ (2006) Electrophysiological channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoustic Soc Am 119(3):1538–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Pyman BC et al (2000) Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various peri-modiolar electrode arrays. Am J Otol 21:205–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedland D, Runge-Samuelson C (2009) Soft cochlear implantation: rationale for the surgical approach. Trends Amplification 13:124–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. de Abajo J, Manrique-Huarte R, Sanhueza I, Alvarez-Gómez L, Zulueta-Santos C, Calavia D, Ramírez F, Manrique M (2017) Effects of implantation and reimplantation of cochlear implant electrodes in an in vivo animal experimental model (Macaca fascicularis). Ear Hear 38(1):e57–e68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huarte A, Molina M, Manrique M, Olleta I, García-Tapia R (1996) Protocolo para la valoración de la audición y el lenguaje, en lengua española, en un programa de implantes cocleares. Acta Otorrinolaringológica española 47(supl 1)

  10. Garaycochea O, Manrique-Huarte R, Manrique M (2017) Intra-operative radiological diagnosis of a tip roll-over electrode array displacement using fluoroscopy, when electrophysiological testing is normal: the importance of both techniques in cochlear implant surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.05.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wanna GB, O'Connell BP, Francis DO et al (2017) Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes. Laryngoscope 128:482–489

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Roland PS, Wright CG, Isaacson B (2007) Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 117(8):1397–1402 (PubMed: 17585282)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang J, Sun J, Sun J, Chen J (2017) Variations in electrode impedance during and after cochlear implantation: round window versus extended round window insertions. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 102:44–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, Gifford RH, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS, Dawant BM, Labadie RF (2014) Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124(S6):S1–S7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cervera-Paz FJ, Linthicum FH, Manrique MS, Pérez N (2004) Morphometry of the human cochlear wall and implications for cochlear surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 124:1124–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Proctor B, Bollobas B, Niparko JK (1986) Anatomy of the round window niche. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:444–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Giord RH, Rivas A, Haynes DS, Noble JH, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and audiologic performance after cochlear implantation: a comparative study between nucleus CI422 and CI512 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 37:1035–1045

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zuniga MG, Rivas A, Hedley-Williams A, Gifford RH, Dwyer R, Dawant BM et al (2017) Tip fold-over in cochlear implantation: case series. Otol Neurotol 38:199–206. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001283

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lupo JE, Biever A, Kelsall DC (2017) Perimodiolar, slim straight and slim modiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays: comparison of performance outcomes. In: CI 2017 Pediatric 15th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children; 2017 Jul 26–29; San Francisco (USA). American Cochlear Implant Alliance Stanford University School of Medicine University of California San Francisco. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.acialliance.org/resource/resmgr/ci2017/CI2017_PPT/Lupo_Electrode_Comparison.pdf

  20. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB et al (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Newbold C, Mergen S, Richardson R, Seligman P, Millard R, Cowan R, Shepherd R (2014) Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int 15(4):191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu H-C, Chen JK-C, Tsai C-M, Chen H-Y, Tung T-H, Li LP-H (2017) Evolution of impedance field telemetry after 1 day of activation in cochlear implant recipients. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173367. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R (2017) Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 37(4):312–319

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Busby PA, Plant KL, Whitford LA (2002) Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 3(2):87–103. https://doi.org/10.1179/cim.2002.3.2.87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jia H, Venail F, Piron JP, Batrel C, Pelliccia P, Artieres F, Uziel A, Mondain M (2011) Effect of surgical technique on electrode impedance after cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 120(8):529–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Christov F, Munder P, Berg L, Bagus H, Lang S, Arweiler-Harbeck D (2016) Ecap analysis in cochlear implant patients as a function of patient´s age and electrode-design. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2016.04.015. (Epub 2016 Jun1)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tabibi S, Kegel A, Lai WK, Bruce IC, Dillier N (2019) Measuring temporal response properties of auditory nerve fibers in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res 380:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Seidman MD, Vivek O, Dickinson W (2005) Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a periomodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 26(4):620–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mittmann P, Rademacher G, Mutze S, Hassepass F, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Evaluation of the relationship between the NRT-ratio, cochlear anatomy, and insertions depth of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Biomed Res Int 2015:706253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Potts LG, Skinner MW, Gotter BD, Strube MJ, Brenner CA (2007) Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 28(4):495–511. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc16e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Seyle K, Brown CJ (2002) Speech perception based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 23:72S–79S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cervera-Paz FJ, Martinez J, Huarte A, Manrique M (2004) Behavioural vs NRT generated auditory maps in children under 3 years of age. Poster session presented at: 7th European Symposium Paediatric Cochlear implantation, 2004 May 2–5, Geneva, Switzerland

  33. Gibson P, Boyd P (2016) Optimal electrode design: straight versus perimodiolar. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(S1):S63–S65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all department of audiology and the nurses of the ENT department especially to Salomé San Bruno, Belén Andueza, Susana Barrado, Rosario Lezaun, Patricia Rodríguez, María Cruz Betelu and Beatriz Pérez.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    Octavio Garaycochea, Raquel Manrique-Huarte, Alicia Huarte, Carlos Prieto, Marta Alvarez de Linera - Alperi & Manuel Manrique

  2. University of Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain

    Octavio Garaycochea, Raquel Manrique-Huarte, Alicia Huarte, Carlos Prieto, Marta Alvarez de Linera - Alperi & Manuel Manrique

  3. University of Navarra School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain

    Carlos Lazaro

Authors
  1. Octavio Garaycochea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raquel Manrique-Huarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Lazaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alicia Huarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Prieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marta Alvarez de Linera - Alperi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manuel Manrique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raquel Manrique-Huarte.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garaycochea, O., Manrique-Huarte, R., Lazaro, C. et al. Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 69–76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05680-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05680-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation