Eric Boyer1, Alexandre Karkas, Arnaud Attye, Virginie Lefournier, Bernard Escude, Sebastien Schmerber. 1. *Joseph Fourier University-Grenoble 1; †Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Grenoble; ‡Department of Radiology, University Hospital, CHU Grenoble; and §Groupe Clinique du Mail, Grenoble; and ∥Radiologie Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of dislocation of precurved versus straight flexible cochlear implant electrode arrays using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive nonrandomized case-comparison study. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Analyses of patients' CBCT images after cochlear implant surgery. INTERVENTION(S): Precurved and straight flexible electrode arrays from two different manufacturers were implanted. A round window insertion was performed in most cases. Two cases necessitated a cochleostomy. The patients' CBCT images were reconstructed in the coronal oblique, sagittal oblique, and axial oblique section. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The insertion depth angle and the incidence of dislocation from the scala tympani to the scala vestibuli were determined. RESULTS: The CBCT images and the incidence of dislocation were analyzed in 54 patients (61 electrode arrays). Thirty-one patients were implanted with a precurved perimodiolar electrode array and 30 patients with a straight flexible electrode array. A total of nine (15%) scalar dislocations were observed in both groups. Eight (26%) scalar dislocations were observed in the precurved array group and one (3%) in the straight array group. Dislocation occurred at an insertion depth angle between 170 and 190 degrees in the precurved array group and at approximately 370 degrees in the straight array group. CONCLUSION: With precurved arrays, dislocation usually occurs in the ascending part of the basal turn of the cochlea. With straight flexible electrode arrays, the incidence of dislocation was lower, and it seems that straight flexible arrays have a higher chance of a confined position within the scala tympani than perimodiolar precurved arrays.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of dislocation of precurved versus straight flexible cochlear implant electrode arrays using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive nonrandomized case-comparison study. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Analyses of patients' CBCT images after cochlear implant surgery. INTERVENTION(S): Precurved and straight flexible electrode arrays from two different manufacturers were implanted. A round window insertion was performed in most cases. Two cases necessitated a cochleostomy. The patients' CBCT images were reconstructed in the coronal oblique, sagittal oblique, and axial oblique section. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The insertion depth angle and the incidence of dislocation from the scala tympani to the scala vestibuli were determined. RESULTS: The CBCT images and the incidence of dislocation were analyzed in 54 patients (61 electrode arrays). Thirty-one patients were implanted with a precurved perimodiolar electrode array and 30 patients with a straight flexible electrode array. A total of nine (15%) scalar dislocations were observed in both groups. Eight (26%) scalar dislocations were observed in the precurved array group and one (3%) in the straight array group. Dislocation occurred at an insertion depth angle between 170 and 190 degrees in the precurved array group and at approximately 370 degrees in the straight array group. CONCLUSION: With precurved arrays, dislocation usually occurs in the ascending part of the basal turn of the cochlea. With straight flexible electrode arrays, the incidence of dislocation was lower, and it seems that straight flexible arrays have a higher chance of a confined position within the scala tympani than perimodiolar precurved 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
Authors: Philipp Mittmann; I Todt; A Ernst; G Rademacher; S Mutze; S Göricke; M Schlamann; R Ramalingam; S Lang; F Christov; D Arweiler-Harbeck Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: William G Morrel; Katherine E Riojas; Robert J Webster; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Tougan Taha Abd El Aziz; Lobna El Fiky; Mennatallah Hatem Shalaby; Ahmed Essam Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Brendan P O'Connell; Jacob B Hunter; René H Gifford; Alejandro Rivas; David S Haynes; Jack H Noble; George B Wanna Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: William G Morrel; Jourdan T Holder; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 3.497
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