Literature DB >> 24566091

Insertion site and sealing technique affect residual hearing and tissue formation after cochlear implantation.

Alice Burghard1, Thomas Lenarz2, Andrej Kral3, Gerrit Paasche2.   

Abstract

Tissue formation around the electrode array of a cochlear implant has been suggested to influence preservation of residual hearing as well as electrical hearing performance of implanted subjects. Further, inhomogeneity in the electrical properties of the scala tympani shape the electrical field and affect current spread. Intracochlear trauma due to electrode insertion and the insertion site itself are commonly seen as triggers for the tissue formation. The present study investigates whether the insertion site, round window membrane (RWM) vs. cochleostomy (CS), or the sealing material, no seal vs. muscle graft vs. carboxylate cement, have an influence on the amount of fibrous tissue and/or new bone formation after CI implantation in the guinea pig. Hearing thresholds were determined by auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements prior to implantation and after 28 days. The amount of tissue formation was quantified by evaluation of microscopic images obtained by a grinding/polishing procedure to keep the CI in place during histological processing. An insertion via the round window membrane resulted after 28 days in less tissue formation in the no seal and muscle seal condition compared to the cochleostomy approach. Between these two sealing techniques there was no difference. Sealing the cochlea with carboxylate cement resulted always in a strong new bone formation and almost total loss of residual hearing. The amount of tissue formation and the hearing loss correlated at 1-8 kHz. Consequently, the use of carboxylate cement as a sealing material in cochlear implantation should be avoided even in animal studies, whereas sealing the insertion site with a muscle graft did not induce an additional tissue growth compared to omitting a seal. For hearing preservation the round window approach should be used.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24566091     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  16 in total

1.  Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Intracochlear inflammatory response to cochlear implant electrodes in humans.

Authors:  Mohammad Seyyedi; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Insertion trauma of a cochlear implant electrode array with Nitinol inlay.

Authors:  Thomas S Rau; Lenka Harbach; Nick Pawsey; Marcel Kluge; Peter Erfurt; Thomas Lenarz; Omid Majdani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Post Hybrid Cochlear Implant Hearing Loss and Endolymphatic Hydrops.

Authors:  Akira Ishiyama; Joni Doherty; Gail Ishiyama; Alicia M Quesnel; Ivan Lopez; Fred H Linthicum
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Relationships between Intrascalar Tissue, Neuron Survival, and Cochlear Implant Function.

Authors:  Donald L Swiderski; Deborah J Colesa; Aaron P Hughes; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-20

6.  Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Brendan P O'Connell; David O Francis; Rene H Gifford; Jacob B Hunter; Jourdan T Holder; Marc L Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; David S Haynes
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 7.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

8.  Cochlear Implant Stimulation of a Hearing Ear Generates Separate Electrophonic and Electroneural Responses.

Authors:  Mika Sato; Peter Baumhoff; Andrej Kral
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Effects of intraoperatively applied glucocorticoid hydrogels on residual hearing and foreign body reaction in a guinea pig model of cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Clemens Honeder; Lukas David Landegger; Elisabeth Engleder; Franz Gabor; Roberto Plasenzotti; Hanns Plenk; Alexandra Kaider; Lena Hirtler; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Christoph Arnoldner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Development of a chronically-implanted mouse model for studies of cochlear health and implant function.

Authors:  Deborah J Colesa; Jenna Devare; Donald L Swiderski; Lisa A Beyer; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.