Optimisation of the round window opening in cochlear implant surgery in wet and dry conditions: impact on intracochlear pressure changes
- 152 Downloads
To preserve residual hearing in cochlear implant candidates, the atraumatic insertion of the cochlea electrode has become a focus of cochlea implant research. In a previous study, intracochlear pressure changes during the opening of the round window membrane were investigated. In the current study, intracochlear pressure changes during opening of the round window membrane under dry and transfluid conditions were investigated. Round window openings were performed in an artificial cochlear model. Intracochlear pressure changes were measured using a micro-optical pressure sensor, which was placed in the apex. Openings of the round window membrane were performed under dry and wet conditions using a cannula and a diode laser. Statistically significant differences in the intracochlear pressure changes were seen between the different methods used for opening of the round window membrane. Lower pressure changes were seen by opening the round window membrane with the diode laser than with the cannula. A significant difference was seen between the dry and wet conditions. The atraumatic approach to the cochlea is assumed to be essential for the preservation of residual hearing. Opening of the round window under wet conditions produce a significant advantage on intracochlear pressure changes in comparison to dry conditions by limiting negative outward pressure.
KeywordsIntracochlear pressure Round window Cochlear implant
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
This study was supported by Advanced Bionics, Stäfa, Switzerland.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 10.Adunka O, Unkelbach MH, Mack M, Hambek M, Gstoettner W, Kiefer J (2004) Cochlear implantation via the round window membrane minimizes trauma to cochlear structures: a histologically controlled insertion study. Acta Otolaryngol 124(7):807–812. doi:10.1080/00016480410018179 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar