Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays
- 35 Downloads
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of electrode discrimination based on electrode to modiolus distance in different cochlear implant models, using image information to estimate the outcomes after an implantation on electrode discrimination
A descriptive prospective randomized study performed during 16 months. A psychoacoustic platform was used to evaluate patients’ electrode discrimination capabilities of patients. For the acquisition of the images, a cone beam computed tomography was used to assess postcochlear implantation of electrodes’ position. We considered two other new measurements: the intracochlear position index, which indicates how far is the electrode from the modiolar wall, and the homogeneity factor (HF), which provides us with information about the distance between the electrodes and the modiolus
21 postlingually deaf adults showing different CI models [CI522 (n = 7), CI512 (n = 7), and CI532 (n = 7)] that corresponded to the lateral and perimodiolar array electrodes. The average success rate of the CI522 group was 47%, of the CI512 group was 48%, and of the CI532 group was 77%. There is statistically significant difference between groups CI532–CI522 (p = 0.0033) and CI532–CI512 (p = 0.0027)
The Nucleus CI532 offers a better perimodiolar placement. HF and IPI measurements provide information about the electrodes location inside the cochlea, being related to electrode discrimination.
KeywordsCochlear implant Electrode discrimination test Intracochlear position index
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The Nucleus Interface Communicator (NIC) toolbox was provided by Cochlear AG for this study. No other conflict of interest or funding was used for this study.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 12.Ebrahimi-Madiseh A, Eikelboom RH, Jayakody DM, Atlas MD (2016) Speech perception scores in cochlear implant recipients: an analysis of ceiling effects in the CUNY sentence test (Quiet) in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. Cochlear Implants Int 17(2):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.1114220 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Macias AR, Morera C, Manrique M, Garcia-Ibanez L, Perez D, Caballe L, Estrada E (2007) Perimodiolar electrode position: effects on thresholds, comfort levels, impedance measurements, and neural response telemetry. Mediterr J Otol 3:140–149Google Scholar
- 15.Cushing SL, Daly MJ, Treaba CG, Chan H, Irish JC, Blaser S, Papsin BC (2012) High-resolution cone-beam computed tomography: a potential tool to improve atraumatic electrode design and position.Acta Otolaryngol 132(4):361–368. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2011.644805
- 20.Ketten DR, Skinner MW, Wang G, Vannier MW, Gates GA, Neely JG (1998) In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 175:1–16Google Scholar
- 29.Lathuillière M, Merklen F, Piron JP, Sicard M, Villemus F, de Champfleur NM, Mondain M (2017) Cone-beam computed tomography in children with cochlear implants: the effect of electrode array position on ECAP. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 92:27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.10.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Dahmani-Causse M, Marx M, Deguine O, Fraysse B, Lepage B, Escudé B (2011) Morphologic examination of the temporal bone by cone beam computed tomography: comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128(5):230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2011.02.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar