Literature DB >> 15805879

Is word recognition correlated with the number of surviving spiral ganglion cells and electrode insertion depth in human subjects with cochlear implants?

Aayesha M Khan1, Ophir Handzel, Barbara J Burgess, Doris Damian, Donald K Eddington, Joseph B Nadol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Speech perception scores using cochlear implants have ranged widely in all published series. The underlying determinants of success in word recognition are incompletely defined. Although it has been assumed that residual spiral ganglion cell population in the deaf ear may play a critical role, published data from temporal bone specimens from patients have not supported this hypothesis. The depth of insertion of a multichannel cochlear implant has also been suggested as a clinical variable that may be correlated with word recognition. In the current study these correlations were evaluated in 15 human subjects. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review of temporal bone histopathology.
METHODS: Temporal bones were fixed and prepared for histological study by standard techniques. Specimens were then serially sectioned and reconstructed by two-dimensional methods. The spiral ganglion cells were counted, and the depth of insertion of the cochlear implant as measured from the round window was determined. Correlation analyses were then performed between the NU6 word scores and spiral ganglion cell counts and the depth of insertion.
RESULTS: The segmental and total spiral ganglion cell counts were not significantly correlated (P > .50) with NU6 word scores for the 15 subjects. Statistically significant correlations were not achieved by separate analysis of implant types. Similarly, no significant correlation between the depth of insertion of the electrode array and postoperative NU6 word score was identified for the group.
CONCLUSION: Although it is unlikely that the number of residual spiral ganglion cell counts is irrelevant to the determination of word recognition following cochlear implantation, there are, clearly, other clinical variables not yet identified that play an important role in determining success with cochlear implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15805879     DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000161335.62139.80

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  56 in total

1.  The effect of cochlear-implant-mediated electrical stimulation on spiral ganglion cells in congenitally deaf white cats.

Authors:  Iris Chen; Charles J Limb; David K Ryugo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-09-04

2.  Factors associated with incomplete insertion of electrodes in cochlear implant surgery: a histopathologic study.

Authors:  Joonhan Lee; Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-06-19       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.

Authors:  Jeong-Seo Kim; Viral D Tejani; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Temporal bone histopathology in a case of sensorineural hearing loss caused by superficial siderosis of the central nervous system and treated by cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Joseph B Nadol; Joe C Adams; Jennifer T O'Malley
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Spatial selectivity to intracochlear electrical stimulation in the inferior colliculus is degraded after long-term deafness in cats.

Authors:  Maike Vollmer; Ralph E Beitel; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 8.  Drug delivery for treatment of inner ear disease: current state of knowledge.

Authors:  Andrew A McCall; Erin E Leary Swan; Jeffrey T Borenstein; William F Sewell; Sharon G Kujawa; Michael J McKenna
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Ganglion cell and 'dendrite' populations in electric acoustic stimulation ears.

Authors:  Helge Rask-Andersen; Wei Liu; Fred Linthicum
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

10.  Restoration of hearing in the VGLUT3 knockout mouse using virally mediated gene therapy.

Authors:  Omar Akil; Rebecca P Seal; Kevin Burke; Chuansong Wang; Aurash Alemi; Matthew During; Robert H Edwards; Lawrence R Lustig
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 17.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.