Maja Svrakic1, J Thomas Roland, Sean O McMenomey, Mario A Svirsky. 1. *Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Disorders, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park†Department of Otolaryngology New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
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.
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.
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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