Literature DB >> 26164294

Electrode migration after cochlear implant surgery: more common than expected?

Aarno Dietz1, Minna Wennström2, Antti Lehtimäki3, Heikki Löppönen2,4, Hannu Valtonen5.   

Abstract

The overall complication rate of cochlear implant surgery is low and so-called electrode failures (electrode migration, misplacement, etc.,) account for only a minority of all complications. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of electrode migration as the cause for increased impedance values and non-auditory stimulation in the basal channels. Within the scope of a quality control process, the cochlear implant database of the Kuopio University Hospital (Finland) was reviewed. Patients with gradual elevation of impedance values and/or non-auditory stimulation of the basal electrode channels were re-examined and cone-beam computed tomography was administered. There were 162 cochlear implant recipients and 201 implanted devices registered in the database. A total of 18 patients (18 devices) were identified having significantly increased impedance values or non-auditory stimulation of the basal electrodes. Cone-beam computed tomography revealed extra-cochlear electrodes in 12 of these patients due to the migration of the electrode array. All extruded electrodes were lateral wall electrodes, i.e., straight electrode arrays (Cochlear CI422 and Med-El devices). The most common feature of electrode migration was the gradual increase of the impedance values in the basal electrodes, even though telemetry could also be unsuspicious. Electrode migration after cochlear implant surgery may be more common than previously reported. At surgery, special attention should be paid to the reliable fixation of the electrode array. This study underlines the importance of postoperative imaging after cochlear implant surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; Cone-beam computed tomography; Electrode migration; Impedances

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26164294     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3716-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  23 in total

1.  Complications following adult cochlear implantation: experience in Manchester.

Authors:  K M J Green; Y M Bhatt; S R Saeed; R T Ramsden
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.469

2.  Electrode failure and device failure in adult cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Bradley Schow; David R Friedland; Jamie Jensen; Linda Burg; Christina L Runge
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2012-02

3.  Electrode migration after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Sarah S Connell; Thomas J Balkany; Annelle V Hodges; Fred F Telischi; Simon I Angeli; Adrien A Eshraghi
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  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

5.  Titanium clip for cochlear implant electrode fixation.

Authors:  N L Cohen; J Kuzma
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

6.  Long-term complications after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jun Ikeya; Atsushi Kawano; Nobuhiro Nishiyama; Sachie Kawaguchi; Akira Hagiwara; Mamoru Suzuki
Journal:  Auris Nasus Larynx       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 1.863

7.  Characteristics of malfunctioning channels in pediatric cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jerry W Lin; Avni Mody; Ross Tonini; Claudia Emery; Jody Haymond; Jeffrey T Vrabec; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Long-term evaluation of the effect of intracochlear steroid deposition on electrode impedance in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Geert De Ceulaer; Susan Johnson; Marjan Yperman; Kristin Daemers; Frans E Offeciers; Gerald M O'Donoghue; Paul J Govaerts
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Timo Stöver; Andreas Buechner; Anke Lesinski-Schiedat; Jim Patrick; Joerg Pesch
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  The effects of cochlear implant electrode deactivation on speech perception and in predicting device failure.

Authors:  Daniel M Zeitler; Anil K Lalwani; J Thomas Roland; Mirette G Habib; David Gudis; Susan B Waltzman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  13 in total

1.  A Materials Roadmap to Functional Neural Interface Design.

Authors:  Steven M Wellman; James R Eles; Kip A Ludwig; John P Seymour; Nicholas J Michelson; William E McFadden; Alberto L Vazquez; Takashi D Y Kozai
Journal:  Adv Funct Mater       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 18.808

2.  Insertion characteristics and placement of the Mid-Scala electrode array in human temporal bones using detailed cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Aarno Dietz; Dzemal Gazibegovic; Jyrki Tervaniemi; Veli-Matti Vartiainen; Heikki Löppönen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Migration due to Cholesterol Granuloma: Cues from a Case.

Authors:  Andrea Di Laora; Isabelle Mosnier; Andrea Ciorba; Stefano Pelucchi; Olivier Sterkers; Daniele Bernardeschi
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.017

4.  Radiological evaluation of inner ear trauma after cochlear implant surgery by cone beam CT(CBCT).

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

5.  Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Viral D Tejani; Julia K Omtvedt; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Jacob J Oleson; Marie V Ozanne
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-04

Review 7.  Review on cochlear implant electrode array tip fold-over and scalar deviation.

Authors:  Anandhan Dhanasingh; Claude Jolly
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2019-01-09

8.  Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants with Electric Field Imaging/Transimpedance Measurements: A Human Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Simone R de Rijk; Yu C Tam; Robert P Carlyon; Manohar L Bance
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

9.  Measurements of the local evoked potential from the cochlear nucleus in patients with an auditory brainstem implant and its implication to auditory perception and audio processor programming.

Authors:  Lutz Gärtner; Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Cochlear Implant Receiver Location and Migration: Experimental Validation Pilot Study of a Clinically Applicable Screening Method.

Authors:  Laura M Markodimitraki; Inge Stegeman; Adriana L Smit; Hans G X M Thomeer
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2020-01-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.