Literature DB >> 18090204

Variance of angular insertion depths in free-fitting and perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes.

Andreas Radeloff1, Martin Mack, Mehran Baghi, Wolfgang K Gstoettner, Oliver F Adunka.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variance in cochlear implant electrode insertion depth in degrees around the modiolus (angular insertion depth) in free-fitting and perimodiolar electrode arrays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight fresh human temporal bones were implanted with free-fitting cochlear implant electrodes, and 18 bones were implanted using perimodiolar electrode arrays. Specimens were embedded, and 2-dimensional radiographs were obtained to assess angular insertion depths. Histologic serial sections of undecalcified bones were then evaluated to analyze intracochlear electrode positions. Finally, linear surgical insertion depths (in millimeters) were correlated with angular insertion depth (degrees around the modiolus).
RESULTS: A moderate variance of angular insertion depth was documented for both free-fitting and perimodiolar electrode arrays. Full insertions into the scala tympani ranged from 540 to 630 degrees with free-fitting arrays and from 270 to 375 degrees with perimodiolar electrodes. In free-fitting devices, a linear relationship between linear (in millimeters) and angular (degrees) insertion depths was observed. Insertions into scala vestibuli were observed in 9 of 28 and 5 of 18 of the specimens for free-fitting and perimodiolar electrodes, respectively. Additionally, scala vestibuli insertions showed greater angular insertion depths when compared with scala tympani implantations.
CONCLUSION: Variances in angular insertion depths seem to be moderate and similar in free-fitting and perimodiolar electrode arrays. Scala vestibuli insertions showed greater angular insertion depths than comparable insertions into the scala tympani. In perimodiolar electrodes, angular insertion depths equal or greater than 390 degrees suggested scala vestibuli placement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18090204     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318157f0ea

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  12 in total

1.  Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Stefano Cosentino; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-08

2.  The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  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

4.  Electrode Location and Angular Insertion Depth Are Predictors of Audiologic Outcomes in Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Ahmet Cakir; Jacob B Hunter; David O Francis; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; Geraldine Zuniga; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; George B Wanna
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Katrien Vermeire; Annes Claes; Vincent Van Rompaey; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Incidence of Complete Insertion in Cochlear Implant Recipients of Long Lateral Wall Arrays.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 5.591

7.  Insertion Depth for Optimized Positioning of Precurved Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Authors:  Rueben A Banalagay; Robert F Labadie; Srijata Chakravorti; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.619

8.  Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time.

Authors:  Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Relationship Between Electrocochleography, Angular Insertion Depth, and Cochlear Implant Speech Perception Outcomes.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Christopher K Giardina; Emily Buss; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

10.  Encoding a Melody Using Only Temporal Information for Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.