Literature DB >> 27755356

Initial Operative Experience and Short-term Hearing Preservation Results With a Mid-scala Cochlear Implant Electrode Array.

Maja Svrakic1, J Thomas Roland, Sean O McMenomey, Mario A Svirsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe our initial operative experience and hearing preservation results with the Advanced Bionics (AB) Mid Scala Electrode (MSE). STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Sixty-three MSE implants in pediatric and adult patients were compared with age- and sex-matched 1j electrode implants from the same manufacturer. All patients were severe to profoundly deaf. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with either the AB 1j electrode or the AB MSE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The MSE and 1j electrodes were compared in their angular depth of insertion and pre to postoperative change in hearing thresholds. Hearing preservation was analyzed as a function of angular depth of insertion. Secondary outcome measures included operative time, incidence of abnormal intraoperative impedance and telemetry values, and incidence of postsurgical complications.
RESULTS: Depth of insertion was similar for both electrodes, but was more consistent for the MSE array and more variable for the 1j array. Patients with MSE electrodes had better hearing preservation. Thresholds shifts at four audiometric frequencies ranging from 250 to 2000 Hz were 10, 7, 2, and 6 dB smaller for the MSE electrode than for the 1j (p < 0.05). Hearing preservation at low frequencies was worse with deeper insertion, regardless of array. Secondary outcome measures were similar for both electrodes.
CONCLUSION: The MSE electrode resulted in more consistent insertion depth and somewhat better hearing preservation than the 1j electrode. Differences in other surgical outcome measures were small or unlikely to have a meaningful effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27755356      PMCID: PMC5104204          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001238

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


  23 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A model of incomplete adaptation to a severely shifted frequency-to-electrode mapping by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-09-23

3.  Partial deafness cochlear implantation at the University of Kansas: techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Sandra Prentiss; Kevin Sykes; Hinrich Staecker
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Prevalence and timing of individual cochlear implant electrode failures.

Authors:  Matthew L Carlson; David J Archibald; Tushar S Dabade; Rene H Gifford; Brian A Neff; Charles W Beatty; David M Barrs; Colin L W Driscoll
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Darlene R Ketten; Laura K Holden; Gary W Harding; Peter G Smith; George A Gates; J Gail Neely; G Robert Kletzker; Barry Brunsden; Barbara Blocker
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-02-27

6.  The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Mary W Lowder; Sue A Karsten; Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

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

9.  In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Arne H Voie; Barry Brunsden; J Gail Neely; Eugene A Saxon; Timothy E Hullar; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2007-04

10.  Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sheryl R Erenberg; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-09
View more
  9 in total

1.  Evaluation of a new slim lateral wall electrode for cochlear implantation: an imaging study in human temporal bones.

Authors:  Aarno Dietz; Matti Iso-Mustajärvi; Sini Sipari; Jyrki Tervaniemi; Dzemal Gazibegovic
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Comparison of Skull Radiograph and Computed Tomography Measurements of Cochlear Implant Insertion Angles.

Authors:  Sara Gallant; David R Friedmann; Mari Hagiwara; J Thomas Roland; Mario A Svirsky; Daniel Jethanamest
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  CT-scan contouring technique allows for direct and reliable measurements of the cochlear duct length: implication in cochlear implantation with straight electrode-arrays.

Authors:  Thi Hau Vu; Chiara Perazzini; Mathilde Puechmaille; Aurélie Bachy; Aurélien Mulliez; Louis Boyer; Thierry Mom; Jean Gabrillargues
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Jacob B Hunter; David S Haynes; Jourdan T Holder; Matt M Dedmon; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; George B Wanna
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) in Children: Investigating Benefit Afforded by Bilateral Versus Unilateral Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Jillian B Roberts; G Christopher Stecker; Jourdan T Holder; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  René H Gifford
Journal:  Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep       Date:  2020-10-02

7.  Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life after Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Long-Term Deafness.

Authors:  Attila Ovari; Lisa Hühnlein; David Nguyen-Dalinger; Daniel Fabian Strüder; Christoph Külkens; Oliver Niclaus; Jens Eduard Meyer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  Assessing Cochlear Implant Insertion Angle From an Intraoperative X-ray Using a Rotating 3D Helical Scala Tympani Model.

Authors:  Christopher K Giardina; Michael W Canfarotta; Nicholas J Thompson; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Sarah E Hodge; Jenna Baker; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.619

9.  Outcomes for a clinically representative cohort of hearing-impaired adults using the Nucleus® CI532 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Matthias Hey; Nicole Neben; Timo Stöver; Uwe Baumann; Alexander Mewes; Tim Liebscher; Mark Schüssler; Antje Aschendorff; Thomas Wesarg; Andreas Büchner; Paula Greenham; Ulrich Hoppe
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 2.503

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.