Literature DB >> 21283037

Assessment of electrode placement and audiological outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation.

George B Wanna1, Jack H Noble, Theodore R McRackan, Benoit M Dawant, Mary S Dietrich, Linsey D Watkins, Alejandro Rivas, Theodore A Schuman, Robert F Labadie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use highly accurate nonrigid algorithms to locate the position of cochlear implant (CI) electrodes and correlate this with audiological performance. PATIENTS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, adult patients who had bilateral CIs were identified, and those with preoperative temporal bone computed tomographic scans were asked to return for a postintervention computed tomography. Sixteen adult patients agreed. Demographics, cause of deafness, length of auditory deprivation, and audiological performance were recorded. INTERVENTION: Using a nonrigid model of the shape variations of intracochlear anatomy, the location of the basilar membrane was specified in relationship to the electrode array. The number of electrodes within each compartment of the cochlea was correlated with hearing in noise and consonant-noun-consonant scores for the known confounding variable: length of deafness. MAIN OUTCOMES: Mann-Whitney U tests of differences were used to compare the hearing performance resulting from implants completely in the scala tympani (ST) versus those not completely in the ST.
RESULTS: Of all implants, 62.5% were fully inserted in the ST; 34.4% were partially inserted into the ST and 3.1% was fully inserted in the scala vestibuli. Controlling for the known contributing variable of length of auditory deprivation, our results show that the location of electrodes in relationship to the scala is not predictive of audiological performance.
CONCLUSION: We have assessed electrode placement and correlated it with audiological outcome. The presence of the electrodes solely in the ST was not predictive of outcome. We estimate that it would take analyzing data of thousands of CI patients before any valid correlations can be made.
© 2011, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21283037      PMCID: PMC4144165          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182096dc2

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


  15 in total

1.  Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults.

Authors:  Antje Aschendorff; Jan Kromeier; Thomas Klenzner; Roland Laszig
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates.

Authors:  Janice Leung; Nae-Yuh Wang; Jennifer D Yeagle; Jill Chinnici; Stephen Bowditch; Howard W Francis; John K Niparko
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-12

3.  Perceptual studies on cochlear implant patients with early onset of profound hearing impairment prior to normal development of auditory, speech, and language skills.

Authors:  Y C Tong; P A Busby; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses.

Authors:  B E Pfingst; K H Franck; L Xu; E M Bauer; T A Zwolan
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2001-06

5.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; S Hatsushika; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Preoperative predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: performance and quality of life.

Authors:  A Q Summerfield; D H Marshall
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

7.  Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  D B Shipp; J M Nedzelski
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

8.  Anatomic verification of a novel method for precise intrascalar localization of cochlear implant electrodes in adult temporal bones using clinically available computed tomography.

Authors:  Theodore A Schuman; Jack H Noble; Charles G Wright; George B Wanna; Benoit Dawant; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  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

10.  Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance.

Authors:  David R Friedland; Holly S Venick; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  29 in total

1.  [Intracochlear electrode position: evaluation after deep insertion using cone beam computed tomography].

Authors:  C Güldner; R Weiss; B Eivazi; S Bien; J A Werner; I Diogo
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Automatic segmentation of intra-cochlear anatomy in post-implantation CT of unilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Fitsum A Reda; Theodore R McRackan; Robert F Labadie; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 8.545

3.  Automatic localization of closely spaced cochlear implant electrode arrays in clinical CTs.

Authors:  Yiyuan Zhao; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Matthew L Carlson; René H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; David S Haynes; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Radiologic and functional evaluation of electrode dislocation from the scala tympani to the scala vestibuli in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  N Fischer; L Pinggera; V Weichbold; D Dejaco; J Schmutzhard; G Widmann
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Automatic selection of the active electrode set for image-guided cochlear implant programming.

Authors:  Yiyuan Zhao; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-09-22

7.  Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode Arrays.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; Robert J Yawn; Ashley M Nassiri; Robert T Dwyer; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Automatic segmentation of intracochlear anatomy in conventional CT.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; Omid Majdani; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.538

9.  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

10.  Forces and trauma associated with minimally invasive image-guided cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Pooyan Rohani; Jason Pile; Lueder A Kahrs; Ramya Balachandran; Grégoire S Blachon; Nabil Simaan; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 3.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.