OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, clinical presentation, and performance of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with tip fold-over. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: CI recipients who underwent postoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning. INTERVENTION(S): Tip fold-over was identified tomographically using previously validated software that identifies the electrode array. Electrophysiologic testing including spread of excitation or electric field imaging (EFI) was measured on those with fold-over. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Location of the fold-over; audiological performance pre and postselective deactivation of fold-over electrodes. RESULTS: Three hundred three ears of 235 CI recipients had postoperative CTs available for review. Six (1.98%) had tip fold-over with 5/6 right-sided ears. Tip fold-over occurred predominantly at 270 degrees and was associated with precurved electrodes (5/6). Patients did not report audiological complaints during initial activation. In one patient, the electrode array remained within the scala tympani with preserved residual hearing despite the fold-over. Spread of excitation supported tip fold-over, but the predictive value was not clear. EFI predicted location of the fold-over with clear predictive value in one patient. At an average follow-up of 11 months, three subjects underwent deactivation of the overlapping electrodes with two of them showing marked audiological improvement. CONCLUSION: In a large academic center with experienced surgeons, tip fold-over occurred at a rate of 1.98% but was not immediately identifiable clinically. CT imaging definitively showed tip fold-over. Deactivating involved electrodes may improve performance possibly avoiding revision surgery. EFI may be highly predictive of tip fold-over and can be run intraoperatively, potentially obviating the need for intraop fluoroscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, clinical presentation, and performance of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with tip fold-over. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: CI recipients who underwent postoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning. INTERVENTION(S): Tip fold-over was identified tomographically using previously validated software that identifies the electrode array. Electrophysiologic testing including spread of excitation or electric field imaging (EFI) was measured on those with fold-over. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Location of the fold-over; audiological performance pre and postselective deactivation of fold-over electrodes. RESULTS: Three hundred three ears of 235 CI recipients had postoperative CTs available for review. Six (1.98%) had tip fold-over with 5/6 right-sided ears. Tip fold-over occurred predominantly at 270 degrees and was associated with precurved electrodes (5/6). Patients did not report audiological complaints during initial activation. In one patient, the electrode array remained within the scala tympani with preserved residual hearing despite the fold-over. Spread of excitation supported tip fold-over, but the predictive value was not clear. EFI predicted location of the fold-over with clear predictive value in one patient. At an average follow-up of 11 months, three subjects underwent deactivation of the overlapping electrodes with two of them showing marked audiological improvement. CONCLUSION: In a large academic center with experienced surgeons, tip fold-over occurred at a rate of 1.98% but was not immediately identifiable clinically. CT imaging definitively showed tip fold-over. Deactivating involved electrodes may improve performance possibly avoiding revision surgery. EFI may be highly predictive of tip fold-over and can be run intraoperatively, potentially obviating the need for intraop fluoroscopy.
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: P Mittmann; G Lauer; A Ernst; S Mutze; F Hassepass; S Arndt; D Arweiler-Harbeck; F Christov Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Danielle R Trakimas; Elliott D Kozin; Iman Ghanad; Joseph B Nadol; Aaron K Remenschneider Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Floris Heutink; Simone R de Rijk; Berit M Verbist; Wendy J Huinck; Emmanuel A M Mylanus Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.311