OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between intrascalar electrode location, electrode type (lateral wall, perimodiolar, and midscala), and angular insertion depth on residual hearing in cochlear implant (CI) recipients. SETTING: Tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Adult CI patients with functional preoperative residual hearing with preoperative and postoperative CT scans. INTERVENTION: Audiological assessment after CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Electrode location, angular insertion depth, residual hearing post-CI, and word scores with CI (consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC]). RESULTS: Forty-five implants in 36 patients (9 bilateral) were studied. Thirty-eight electrode arrays (84.4%) were fully inserted in scala tympani (ST), 6 (13.3%) crossed from ST to scala vestibuli (SV), and 1 (2.2%) was completely in SV. Twenty-two of the 38 (57.9%) with full ST insertion maintained residual hearing at 1 month compared with 0 of the 7 (0%) with non-full ST insertion (p = 0.005). Three surgical approaches were used: cochleostomy (C) 6/44, extended round window (ERW) 8/44, and round window (RW) 30/44. C and ERW were small group to compare with RW approaches. However if we combine C + ERW, then RW has higher chance of full ST insertion (p = 0.014). Looking at the full ST group, neither age, sex, nor electrode type demonstrated statistically significant associations with hearing preservation (p = 0.646, p = 0.4, and p = 0.929, respectively). The median angular insertion depth was 429° (range, 373°-512°) with no significant difference between the hearing and nonhearing preserved groups (p = 0.287). CONCLUSION: Scalar excursion is a strong predictor of losing residual hearing. However, neither age, sex, electrode type, nor angular insertion depth was correlated with hearing preservation in the full ST group. Techniques to decrease the risk of electrode excursion from ST are likely to result in improved residual hearing and CI performance.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between intrascalar electrode location, electrode type (lateral wall, perimodiolar, and midscala), and angular insertion depth on residual hearing in cochlear implant (CI) recipients. SETTING: Tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Adult CI patients with functional preoperative residual hearing with preoperative and postoperative CT scans. INTERVENTION: Audiological assessment after CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Electrode location, angular insertion depth, residual hearing post-CI, and word scores with CI (consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC]). RESULTS: Forty-five implants in 36 patients (9 bilateral) were studied. Thirty-eight electrode arrays (84.4%) were fully inserted in scala tympani (ST), 6 (13.3%) crossed from ST to scala vestibuli (SV), and 1 (2.2%) was completely in SV. Twenty-two of the 38 (57.9%) with full ST insertion maintained residual hearing at 1 month compared with 0 of the 7 (0%) with non-full ST insertion (p = 0.005). Three surgical approaches were used: cochleostomy (C) 6/44, extended round window (ERW) 8/44, and round window (RW) 30/44. C and ERW were small group to compare with RW approaches. However if we combine C + ERW, then RW has higher chance of full ST insertion (p = 0.014). Looking at the full ST group, neither age, sex, nor electrode type demonstrated statistically significant associations with hearing preservation (p = 0.646, p = 0.4, and p = 0.929, respectively). The median angular insertion depth was 429° (range, 373°-512°) with no significant difference between the hearing and nonhearing preserved groups (p = 0.287). CONCLUSION: Scalar excursion is a strong predictor of losing residual hearing. However, neither age, sex, electrode type, nor angular insertion depth was correlated with hearing preservation in the full ST group. Techniques to decrease the risk of electrode excursion from ST are likely to result in improved residual hearing and CI performance.
Authors: Thomas R Van De Water; Ralph N Abi Hachem; Christine T Dinh; Esperanza Bas; Scott M Haake; Gia Hoosien; Richard Vivero; Sherry Chan; Jao He; Adrien A Eshraghi; Simon I Angeli; Fred F Telischi; Thomas J Balkany Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2010-06
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Wolfgang K Gstoettner; Paul van de Heyning; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Constantino Morera; Manuel Sainz; Katrien Vermeire; Sonelle Mcdonald; Laura Cavallé; Silke Helbig; Juan García Valdecasas; Ilona Anderson; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Alex D Sweeney; Jacob B Hunter; Matthew L Carlson; Alejandro Rivas; Marc L Bennett; Rene H Gifford; Jack H Noble; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; George B Wanna Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.497
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: Christopher K Giardina; Tatyana E Khan; Stephen H Pulver; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2018 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.570
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