Samuel R Barber1, Elliott D Kozin, Aaron K Remenschneider, Sidharth V Puram, Max Smith, Barbara S Herrmann, Mary E Cunnane, M Christian Brown, Daniel J Lee. 1. 1Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA; 2Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 3Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; 4Department of Audiology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA; and 5Department of Radiology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) provides sound awareness to patients who are ineligible for cochlear implantation. Auditory performance varies widely among similar ABI cohorts. We hypothesize that differences in electrode array position contribute to this variance. Herein, we classify ABI array position based on postoperative imaging and investigate the relationship between position and perception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of pediatric and adult ABI users with postoperative computed tomography. To standardize views across subjects, true axial reformatted series of scans were created using the McRae line. Using multiplanar reconstructions, basion and electrode array tip coordinates and array angles from vertical were measured. From a lateral view, array angles (V) were classified into types I to IV, and from posterior view, array angles (T) were classified into types A to D. Array position was further categorized by measuring distance vertical from basion (D1) and lateral from midline (D2). Differences between array classifications were compared with audiometric thresholds, number of active electrodes, and pitch ranking. RESULTS: Pediatric (n = 4, 2 with revisions) and adult (n = 7) ABI subjects were included in this study. Subjects had a wide variety of ABI array angles, but most were aimed superiorly and posteriorly (type II, n = 7) from lateral view and upright or medially tilted from posterior view (type A, n = 6). Mean pediatric distances were 8 to 42% smaller than adults for D1 and D2. In subjects with perceptual data, electrical thresholds and the number of active electrodes differed among classification types. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study to classify ABI electrode array orientation, array position varied widely. This variability may explain differences in auditory performance.
OBJECTIVES: The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) provides sound awareness to patients who are ineligible for cochlear implantation. Auditory performance varies widely among similar ABI cohorts. We hypothesize that differences in electrode array position contribute to this variance. Herein, we classify ABI array position based on postoperative imaging and investigate the relationship between position and perception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of pediatric and adult ABI users with postoperative computed tomography. To standardize views across subjects, true axial reformatted series of scans were created using the McRae line. Using multiplanar reconstructions, basion and electrode array tip coordinates and array angles from vertical were measured. From a lateral view, array angles (V) were classified into types I to IV, and from posterior view, array angles (T) were classified into types A to D. Array position was further categorized by measuring distance vertical from basion (D1) and lateral from midline (D2). Differences between array classifications were compared with audiometric thresholds, number of active electrodes, and pitch ranking. RESULTS: Pediatric (n = 4, 2 with revisions) and adult (n = 7) ABI subjects were included in this study. Subjects had a wide variety of ABI array angles, but most were aimed superiorly and posteriorly (type II, n = 7) from lateral view and upright or medially tilted from posterior view (type A, n = 6). Mean pediatric distances were 8 to 42% smaller than adults for D1 and D2. In subjects with perceptual data, electrical thresholds and the number of active electrodes differed among classification types. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study to classify ABI electrode array orientation, array position varied widely. This variability may explain differences in auditory performance.
Authors: Sidharth V Puram; Samuel R Barber; Elliott D Kozin; Parth Shah; Aaron Remenschneider; Barbara S Herrmann; Ann-Christine Duhaime; Fred G Barker; Daniel J Lee Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Kevin Wong; Ruwan Kiringoda; Vivek V Kanumuri; Samuel R Barber; Kevin Franck; Nita Sahani; M Christian Brown; Barbara S Herrmann; Daniel J Lee Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Amélie A Guex; Ariel Edward Hight; Shreya Narasimhan; Nicolas Vachicouras; Daniel J Lee; Stéphanie P Lacour; M Christian Brown Journal: Hear Res Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Stephen McInturff; Florent-Valéry Coen; Ariel E Hight; Osama Tarabichi; Vivek V Kanumuri; Nicolas Vachicouras; Stéphanie P Lacour; Daniel J Lee; M Christian Brown Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Osama Tarabichi; Vivek V Kanumuri; Julian Klug; Nicolas Vachicouras; Maria J Duarte; Lorenz Epprecht; Elliott D Kozin; Katherine Reinshagen; Stéphanie P Lacour; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2019-02-22
Authors: Kunal R Shetty; Sarah E Ridge; Vivek Kanumuri; Angela Zhu; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee Journal: World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Milovan Regodić; Christian F Freyschlag; Johannes Kerschbaumer; Malik Galijašević; Romed Hörmann; Wolfgang Freysinger Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Lorenz Epprecht; Ahad Qureshi; Elliott D Kozin; Nicolas Vachicouras; Alexander M Huber; Ron Kikinis; Nikos Makris; M Christian Brown; Katherine L Reinshagen; Daniel J Lee Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.619