Literature DB >> 25473955

Intraindividual comparison of psychophysical parameters between perimodiolar and lateral-type electrode arrays in patients with bilateral cochlear implants.

Junhui Jeong1, Minbum Kim, Ji Hye Heo, Mi-Young Bang, Mi Ran Bae, Jungmin Kim, Jae Young Choi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Perimodiolar electrode arrays were developed to improve stimulation of specific neuronal populations and to decrease power consumption; however, they can damage the cochlear structure. We examined and compared psychophysical parameters of perimodiolar and lateral-type electrode arrays in patients who received a different type of bilateral cochlear implant (CI) in each ear. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Eight child patients (three males, five females) received a different CI in each ear (perimodiolar array and lateral array). They received the CIs sequentially (n = 7) or simultaneously (n = 1).
INTERVENTIONS: Diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Electrically evoked compound action potential, threshold level, comfort level, and dynamic range (DR) of the basal, mid, and apical electrodes were compared. We also surveyed battery consumption for each device.
RESULTS: Electrically evoked compound action potential threshold, threshold level, and comfort level were lower for the perimodiolar-type electrode array than for the lateral-type electrode array in most patients. However, the DR for the perimodiolar array was narrower than for the lateral array. For most patients, there was little difference in battery life.
CONCLUSION: Although the level of electrical energy required for auditory stimulation seems to be lower for the perimodiolar electrode array than for the laterally placed array, the DR was wider and the amount of battery consumption was similar. The electrode array should be chosen by considering various patient factors, such as residual hearing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25473955     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000672

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


  6 in total

1.  Tight modiolar proximity and feasibility of slim modiolar cochlear implant electrode array insertion in diverse etiologies of hearing loss.

Authors:  Yehree Kim; Yoonjoong Kim; Young Seok Kim; Sang-Yeon Lee; Byung Yoon Choi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Relationship Between Electrode-to-Modiolus Distance and Current Levels for Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Timothy J Davis; Dongqing Zhang; Rene H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Programming characteristics of cochlear implants in children: effects of aetiology and age at implantation.

Authors:  Paola V Incerti; Teresa Y C Ching; Sanna Hou; Patricia Van Buynder; Christopher Flynn; Robert Cowan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 4.  Challenging aspects of contemporary cochlear implant electrode array design.

Authors:  Pavel Mistrík; Claude Jolly; Daniel Sieber; Ingeborg Hochmair
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-30

5.  The Pull-Back Technique for the 532 Slim Modiolar Electrode.

Authors:  C Riemann; H Sudhoff; I Todt
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Outcomes for a clinically representative cohort of hearing-impaired adults using the Nucleus® CI532 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Matthias Hey; Nicole Neben; Timo Stöver; Uwe Baumann; Alexander Mewes; Tim Liebscher; Mark Schüssler; Antje Aschendorff; Thomas Wesarg; Andreas Büchner; Paula Greenham; Ulrich Hoppe
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 2.503

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.