Literature DB >> 18667935

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

Charles C Finley1, Timothy A Holden, Laura K Holden, Bruce R Whiting, Richard A Chole, Gail J Neely, Timothy E Hullar, Margaret W Skinner.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Suboptimal cochlear implant (CI) electrode array placement may reduce presentation of coded information to the central nervous system and, consequently, limit speech recognition.
BACKGROUND: Generally, mean speech reception scores for CI recipients are similar across different CI systems, yet large outcome variation is observed among recipients implanted with the same device. These observations suggest significant recipient-dependent factors influence speech reception performance. This study examines electrode array insertion depth and scalar placement as recipient-dependent factors affecting outcome.
METHODS: Scalar location and depth of insertion of intracochlear electrodes were measured in 14 patients implanted with Advanced Bionics electrode arrays and whose word recognition scores varied broadly. Electrode position was measured using computed tomographic images of the cochlea and correlated with stable monosyllabic word recognition scores.
RESULTS: Electrode placement, primarily in terms of depth of insertion and scala tympani versus scala vestibuli location, varies widely across subjects. Lower outcome scores are associated with greater insertion depth and greater number of contacts being located in scala vestibuli. Three patterns of scalar placement are observed suggesting variability in insertion dynamics arising from surgical technique.
CONCLUSION: A significant portion of variability in word recognition scores across a broad range of performance levels of CI subjects is explained by variability in scalar location and insertion depth of the electrode array. We suggest that this variability in electrode placement can be reduced and average speech reception improved by better selection of cochleostomy sites, revised insertion approaches, and control of insertion depth during surgical placement of the array.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18667935      PMCID: PMC2663852          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f492

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


  69 in total

1.  Scala vestibuli cochlear implantation in patients with partially ossified cochleas.

Authors:  Stefano Berrettini; Francesca Forli; Emanuele Neri; Giovanni Segnini; Stefano Sellari Franceschini
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.469

2.  Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Laura K Holden; Lesley A Whitford; Kerrie L Plant; Colleen Psarros; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. II: Comparison of Spiral Clarion and HiFocus II electrodes.

Authors:  Peter Wardrop; David Whinney; Stephen J Rebscher; William Luxford; Patricia Leake
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: Comparison of Nucleus banded and Nucleus Contour electrodes.

Authors:  Peter Wardrop; David Whinney; Stephen J Rebscher; J Thomas Roland; William Luxford; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Evaluating cochlear implant trauma to the scala vestibuli.

Authors:  O Adunka; J Kiefer; M H Unkelbach; A Radeloff; W Gstoettner
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.597

7.  Histopathology of human cochlear implants: correlation of psychophysical and anatomical measures.

Authors:  Aayesha M Khan; Darren M Whiten; Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.208

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

Authors:  Aayesha M Khan; Ophir Handzel; Barbara J Burgess; Doris Damian; Donald K Eddington; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Nucleus multichannel cochlear implantation in partially ossified cochleas using the Steenerson procedure.

Authors:  Salvatore Bacciu; Andrea Bacciu; Enrico Pasanisi; Vincenzo Vincenti; Maurizio Guida; Anna Barbot; Teresa Berghenti
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Darlene R Ketten; Laura K Holden; Gary W Harding; Peter G Smith; George A Gates; J Gail Neely; G Robert Kletzker; Barry Brunsden; Barbara Blocker
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-02-27
View more
  158 in total

1.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

Review 2.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

3.  Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations.

Authors:  Frank Eisner; Carolyn McGettigan; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen; Sophie K Scott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Steven M Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Force Perception Thresholds in Cochlear Implantation Surgery.

Authors:  Louis B Kratchman; Daniel Schuster; Mary S Dietrich; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Response Changes During Insertion of a Cochlear Implant Using Extracochlear Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Christopher K Giardina; Tatyana E Khan; Stephen H Pulver; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Evaluation of Rigid Cochlear Models for Measuring Cochlear Implant Electrode Position.

Authors:  Ahmet Cakir; Robert F Labadie; M Geraldine Zuniga; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Initial Operative Experience and Short-term Hearing Preservation Results With a Mid-scala Cochlear Implant Electrode Array.

Authors:  Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Sean O McMenomey; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.