Literature DB >> 29102129

An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs.

Anandhan Dhanasingh1, Claude Jolly2.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant electrode arrays are designed with specific characteristics that allow for the preservation of intra-cochlear structures during the insertion process, as well as during explantation. Straight lateral wall (LW) electrode arrays and pre-curved modiolar hugging (MH) electrode arrays are the two types that are commercially available. Although there is a third type of electrode array called the mid-scala (MS), which is positioned in the middle of the scala tympani (ST), and is usually considered as an MH type of electrode. Different lengths of straight LW electrode arrays are currently available which allow for insertion across a range of different sized cochleae; however, due to manufacturing limitations, pre-curved MH electrodes are generally only available to cover the basal turn of the cochlea, while the spiral ganglion cells are distributed in the Rosenthal's canal that extends into 1.75 turns of the cochlea. Both straight LW and pre-curved MH electrodes can cause a certain degree of intra-cochlear trauma, but pre-curved MH electrodes tend to deviate into the scala vestibuli from the scala tympani more often than the straight LW electrodes, resulting in damage to the osseous spiral lamina/spiral ligament which could initiate new bone formation and eventually affect the cochlear implant users' hearing performance. Structural damage to the cochlea could also affect the vestibular function. With pre-curved MH electrodes, higher degrees of trauma are related to the fixed curling geometry of the electrode in relation to the variable coiling pattern of individual cochleae, the orientation of the electrode contacts in relation to the modiolus wall, and how effectively the stylet was handled by the surgeon during the procedure. Wire management, metal density, and the shore hardness of the silicone elastomer all contribute to the stiffness/flexibility of the electrode. It is important to acknowledge the impact of bringing the stimulating contacts closer to the modiolus wall with an MH electrode type in terms of the resultant damage to intra-cochlear structures. The presence of malformed cochleae should be identified and appropriate electrodes should be chosen for each specific cochlea, irrespective of the cochlear implant brand. In order to utilize drug therapy, the cochlea should be free from any trauma.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear electrode; Cochlear malformation; Electrode translocation; Pre-curved modiolar hugging; Straight lateral wall; Structure preservation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29102129     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  52 in total

1.  Otopathology of Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Patients With Bilateral Temporal Bone Fracture.

Authors:  Danielle R Trakimas; Renata M Knoll; Reuven Ishai; Daniel J Lee; David H Jung; Joseph B Nadol; Aaron K Remenschneider; Elliott D Kozin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

3.  Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Molly D Bergan; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 1.493

4.  Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes.

Authors:  Octavio Garaycochea; Raquel Manrique-Huarte; Carlos Lazaro; Alicia Huarte; Carlos Prieto; Marta Alvarez de Linera-Alperi; Manuel Manrique
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Design, Fabrication, and Evaluation of a Parylene Thin-Film Electrode Array for Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Yuchen Xu; Chuan Luo; Fan-Gang Zeng; John C Middlebrooks; Harrison W Lin; Zheng You
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Is Cochlear Length Related to Congenital Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Preliminary Data.

Authors:  Mehmet Bilgin Eser; Başak Atalay; Mahmut Tayyar Kalcıoğlu
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.017

7.  Heat transfer analysis in an uncoiled model of the cochlea during magnetic cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Fateme Esmailie; Mathieu Francoeur; Tim Ameel
Journal:  Int J Heat Mass Transf       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 5.584

8.  Evaluation of Outcome Variability Associated With Lateral Wall, Mid-scalar, and Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays When Controlling for Preoperative Patient Characteristics.

Authors:  Joshua E Fabie; Robert G Keller; Jonathan L Hatch; Meredith A Holcomb; Elizabeth L Camposeo; Paul R Lambert; Ted A Meyer; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients?

Authors:  Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; Olivier Vanderveken; Vedat Topsakal; Vincent Van Rompaey
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Cone-beam CT versus Multidetector CT in Postoperative Cochlear Implant Imaging: Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.

Authors:  R A Helal; R Jacob; M A Elshinnawy; A I Othman; I M Al-Dhamari; D W Paulus; T T Abdelaziz
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.