HYPOTHESIS: Intracochlear sound pressures (PIC) and velocity measurements of the stapes, round window, and promontory (VStap/RW/Prom) will show frequency-dependent attenuation using magnet-based transcutaneous bone conduction implants (TCBCIs) in comparison with direct-connect skin-penetrating implants (DCBCIs). BACKGROUND: TCBCIs have recently been introduced as alternatives to DCBCIs. Clinical studies have demonstrated elevated high-frequency thresholds for TCBCIs as compared with DCBCIs; however, little data exist examining the direct effect of skin thickness on the cochlear input signal using TCBCIs. METHODS: Using seven cadaveric heads, PIC was measured in the scala vestibuli and tympani with fiber-optic pressure sensors concurrently with VStap/RW/Prom via laser Doppler vibrometry. Ipsilateral titanium implant fixtures were placed and connected to either a DCBCI or a TCBCI. Soft tissue flaps with varying thicknesses (no flap and 3, 6, and 9 mm) were placed successively between the magnetic plate and sound processor magnet. A bone conduction transducer coupled to custom software provided pure-tone stimuli between 120 and 10,240 Hz. RESULTS: Stimulation via the DCBCI produced the largest response magnitudes. The TCBCI showed similar PSV/ST and VStap/RW/Prom with no intervening flap and a frequency-dependent nonlinear reduction of magnitude with increasing flap thickness. Phase shows a comparable dependence on transmission delay as the acoustic baseline, and the slope steepens at higher frequencies as flap thickness increases, suggesting a longer group delay. CONCLUSION: Proper soft tissue management is critical to optimize the cochlear input signal. The skin thickness-related effects on cochlear response magnitudes should be taken into account when selecting patients for a TCBCI.
HYPOTHESIS: Intracochlear sound pressures (PIC) and velocity measurements of the stapes, round window, and promontory (VStap/RW/Prom) will show frequency-dependent attenuation using magnet-based transcutaneous bone conduction implants (TCBCIs) in comparison with direct-connect skin-penetrating implants (DCBCIs). BACKGROUND:TCBCIs have recently been introduced as alternatives to DCBCIs. Clinical studies have demonstrated elevated high-frequency thresholds for TCBCIs as compared with DCBCIs; however, little data exist examining the direct effect of skin thickness on the cochlear input signal using TCBCIs. METHODS: Using seven cadaveric heads, PIC was measured in the scala vestibuli and tympani with fiber-optic pressure sensors concurrently with VStap/RW/Prom via laser Doppler vibrometry. Ipsilateral titanium implant fixtures were placed and connected to either a DCBCI or a TCBCI. Soft tissue flaps with varying thicknesses (no flap and 3, 6, and 9 mm) were placed successively between the magnetic plate and sound processor magnet. A bone conduction transducer coupled to custom software provided pure-tone stimuli between 120 and 10,240 Hz. RESULTS: Stimulation via the DCBCI produced the largest response magnitudes. The TCBCI showed similar PSV/ST and VStap/RW/Prom with no intervening flap and a frequency-dependent nonlinear reduction of magnitude with increasing flap thickness. Phase shows a comparable dependence on transmission delay as the acoustic baseline, and the slope steepens at higher frequencies as flap thickness increases, suggesting a longer group delay. CONCLUSION: Proper soft tissue management is critical to optimize the cochlear input signal. The skin thickness-related effects on cochlear response magnitudes should be taken into account when selecting patients for a TCBCI.
Authors: Catharina A J Dun; Hubert T Faber; Maarten J F de Wolf; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers; Myrthe K S Hol Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Myrthe K S Hol; Sylvia J W Kunst; Ad F M Snik; Arjan J Bosman; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Martijn J H Agterberg; Ad F M Snik; Myrthe K S Hol; Thamar E M van Esch; Cor W R J Cremers; Marc M Van Wanrooij; A John Van Opstal Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2010-09-14
Authors: Myrthe K S Hol; Rik C Nelissen; Martijn J H Agterberg; Cor W R J Cremers; Ad F M Snik Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: D Wesley Grantham; Daniel H Ashmead; David S Haynes; Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Robert F Labadie; Todd A Ricketts Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Nyssa F Farrell; Renee M Banakis Hartl; Victor Benichoux; Andrew D Brown; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; Nathaniel T Greene; Herman A Jenkins; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Nathaniel T Greene; Mohamed A Alhussaini; James R Easter; Theodore F Argo; Tim Walilko; Daniel J Tollin Journal: Hear Res Date: 2018-05-19 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; James R Easter; Mohamed A Alhussaini; Daniel J Tollin; Herman A Jenkins Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; Jameson K Mattingly; Nathaniel T Greene; Nyssa F Farrell; Samuel P Gubbels; Daniel J Tollin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; Jameson K Mattingly; Nathaniel T Greene; Herman A Jenkins; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Nathaniel T Greene; Jameson K Mattingly; Renee M Banakis Hartl; Daniel J Tollin; Stephen P Cass Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.311