Literature DB >> 26649603

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

Timothy J Davis, Dongqing Zhang, Rene H Gifford, Benoit M Dawant, Robert F Labadie, Jack H Noble.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Electrode-to-modiolus distance is correlated with clinically programmed stimulation levels.
BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom has long supposed a significant relationship between cochlear implant (CI) stimulation levels and electrode-to-modiolus distance; however, to date, no such formal investigation has been completed. Thus, the purpose of this project was to investigate the relationship between stimulation levels and electrode-to-modiolus distance. A strong correlation between the two would suggest that stimulation levels might be used to estimate electrode-to-modiolus geometry.
METHODS: Electrode-to-modiolus distance was determined via CT imaging using validated CI position analysis software in 137 implanted ears from the three manufacturers holding FDA approval in the United States. Analysis included 2,365 total electrodes, with 1,472 from precurved arrays. Distances were compared to clinically programmed C/M levels that were converted to charge units.
RESULTS: Mean modiolar distance with perimodiolar and lateral wall electrodes was 0.47 and 1.15 mm, respectively. Mean suprathreshold charge values were significantly different between each manufacturer. When combining all data, we found a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.367, p < 0.01) that was driven both by the different charge values across companies, and that the company with the highest mean charge values only offers straight electrode arrays. When grouped by electrode type, however, we found a weak correlation (r = 0.12, p < 0.01) for perimodiolar array electrodes only. When considering a single array type from any one manufacturer, only one was observed where distance mildly predicted charge.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that electrode distance minimally contributes to the current level required for suprathreshold stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26649603      PMCID: PMC4675044          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000896

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


  17 in total

1.  Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays.

Authors:  M Tykocinski; L T Cohen; B C Pyman; T Roland; C Treaba; J Palamara; M C Dahm; R K Shepherd; J Xu; R S Cowan; N L Cohen; G M Clark
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-03

2.  Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children.

Authors:  Phillip A Wackym; Jill B Firszt; Wolfgang Gaggl; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; Ruth M Reeder; Jennifer C Raulie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Effect of peri-modiolar cochlear implant positioning on auditory nerve responses: a neural response telemetry study.

Authors:  Stijn van Weert; Robert J Stokroos; Mirçea M J G Rikers; Pim van Dijk
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.494

4.  Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Objective methods in postlingually and prelingually deafened adults for programming cochlear implants: ESR and NRT.

Authors:  Marek Polak; Annelle V Hodges; John E King; Stacy L Payne; Thomas J Balkany
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2006-09

6.  Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children.

Authors:  Karen A Gordon; Blake C Papsin; Robert V Harrison
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.

Authors:  Aaron J Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli; Steven J Staller; Patti L Arndt; Anne Cosgriff; Kiara Ebinger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; S Hatsushika; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 3.208

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

Authors:  Junhui Jeong; Minbum Kim; Ji Hye Heo; Mi-Young Bang; Mi Ran Bae; Jungmin Kim; Jae Young Choi
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Electric charge requirements of pediatric cochlear implant recipients enrolled in the Childhood Development After Cochlear Implantation study.

Authors:  Teresa A Zwolan; Mary Beth O'Sullivan; Nancy E Fink; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  18 in total

1.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels in perimodiolar electrode recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode 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

3.  Electrophysiological detection of scalar changing perimodiolar cochlear electrode arrays: a long term follow-up study.

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

4.  Towards a Complete In Silico Assessment of the Outcome of Cochlear Implantation Surgery.

Authors:  Nerea Mangado; Mario Ceresa; Heval Benav; Pavel Mistrik; Gemma Piella; Miguel A González Ballester
Journal:  Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.590

5.  Speech recognition with cochlear implants as a function of the number of channels: Effects of electrode placement.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Further Evidence of the Relationship Between Cochlear Implant Electrode Positioning and Hearing Outcomes.

Authors:  Srijata Chakravorti; Jack H Noble; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant; Brendan P O'Connell; Jianing Wang; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Measurements in Traditional and Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Ashley M Nassiri; Robert J Yawn; René H Gifford; David S Haynes; Jillian B Roberts; Max S Gilbane; Jack Murfee; Marc L Bennett
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Impedance Measures During in vitro Cochlear Implantation Predict Array Positioning.

Authors:  Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Elliot Samuel Krause; Kanthaiah Koka; Douglas Carl Fitzpatrick
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.538

9.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels for an array with large inter-electrode distances.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Using the electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) interphase gap effect to select electrode stimulation sites in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 3.672

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.