Literature DB >> 29242990

The influence of cochlear morphology on the final electrode array position.

M C Ketterer1, A Aschendorff2, S Arndt2, F Hassepass2, T Wesarg2, R Laszig2, R Beck2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative information about cochlear morphology and size increasingly seems to be a defining factor of electrode choice in cochlear implant surgery. Different types of electrodes differ in length and diameter to accommodate individual cochlear anatomy. Smaller cochlear size results in increased insertion depth with a higher risk to dislocate and causes cochlear trauma with reduced postoperative outcome. The objective of the current study is to describe the three-dimensional size of the cochlea, to compare interindividual differences, to determine the relationship between cochlear size and insertion angle, and to define risk factors for dislocation during insertion.
DESIGN: Four hundred and three patients implanted between 2003 and 2010 inserted via cochleostomy with a perimodiolar electrode array (Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode array) have been compared. CBCT (Cone beam computed tomography) was used to determine electrode array position (scala tympani versus scala vestibuli insertion, intracochlear dislocation, and insertion angle) and cochlear size (diameters and height). The trajectory of the electrode array and the lateral wall have been measured, and the position of the electrode array has been estimated.
RESULTS: The mean value of the largest diameter was 9.95 mm and that of the perpendicular distance was 6.54 mm. There was a statistically significant correlation between those values. Mean height was 3.85 mm. The intracochlear relation of the electrode array and the modiolus showed a statistically significant relationship with the cochlear expanse. The electrode array was more likely to dislocate in cochleae with a smaller diameter and a lower height. Cochleae with insertions into scala vestibuli exhibited a smaller height compared to scala tympani insertions with statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: Cochlear size and shape is variable, and the measured data of this study confirm the finding of other researchers. This study established two heights by two different planes to achieve a three-dimensional understanding of the cochlea. The electrode array was more likely to dislocate in cochleae with smaller diameter and smaller height. It can be assumed that the height established in this study seems to be a new preoperative parameter to underline the risk of scalar dislocation and not favored scala vestibuli insertion if using a cochleostomy approach. In conclusion, cochlear size, especially the height, is influencing the final position of the electrode array. Using preoperative scans of the cochlear diameters and cochlear height, a next step to custom-sized arrays is available.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear height; Cochlear implant electrode position; Cochlear morphology; Cochlear size; Cone beam computed tomography; Dislocation of electrode array; Electrode array position; Quality control; Size of the cochlea

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29242990     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4842-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  18 in total

1.  Anatomic variations of the cochlea and relations to other temporal bone structures.

Authors:  P Dimopoulos; C Muren
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 1.990

2.  Diversity in cochlear morphology and its influence on cochlear implant electrode position.

Authors:  Kim S van der Marel; Jeroen J Briaire; Ron Wolterbeek; Jorien Snel-Bongers; Berit M Verbist; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal's canal.

Authors:  A Kawano; H L Seldon; G M Clark
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.547

4.  [Visualization of subtle temporal bone structures. Comparison of cone beam CT and MDCT].

Authors:  M K Pein; S Brandt; S K Plontke; S Kösling
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems.

Authors:  Maria-Izabel Kós; Colette Boëx; Alain Sigrist; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why.

Authors:  Chris James; Klaus Albegger; Rolf Battmer; Sandro Burdo; Naima Deggouj; Olivier Deguine; Norbert Dillier; Michel Gersdorff; Roland Laszig; Thomas Lenarz; Manuel Manrique Rodriguez; Michel Mondain; Erwin Offeciers; Angel Ramos Macías; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Sterkers; Ernst Von Wallenberg; Benno Weber; Bernard Fraysse
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  In vivo measurements of the insertion depth of cochlear implant arrays using flat-panel volume computed tomography.

Authors:  Annett Trieger; Anja Schulze; Matthias Schneider; Thomas Zahnert; Dirk Mürbe
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant.

Authors:  Bernard Fraysse; Angel Ramos Macías; Olivier Sterkers; Sandro Burdo; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Deguine; Thomas Klenzner; Thomas Lenarz; Manuel Manrique Rodriguez; Ernst Von Wallenberg; Chris James
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  D R Ketten; M W Skinner; G Wang; M W Vannier; G A Gates; J G Neely
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1998-11

10.  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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Effect of Scala Tympani Height on Insertion Depth of Straight Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Authors:  William G Morrel; Jourdan T Holder; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Asymmetric hearing loss and the benefit of cochlear implantation regarding speech perception, tinnitus burden and psychological comorbidities: a prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  Manuel Christoph Ketterer; Steffen Knopke; Sophia Marie Häußler; Tanja Hildenbrand; Christoph Becker; Stefan Gräbel; Heidi Olze
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes.

Authors:  Jafri Kuthubutheen; Amandeep Grewal; Sean Symons; Julian Nedzelski; David Shipp; Vincent Lin; Joseph Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Review on cochlear implant electrode array tip fold-over and scalar deviation.

Authors:  Anandhan Dhanasingh; Claude Jolly
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2019-01-09

5.  Radiological evaluation of a new straight electrode array compared to its precursors.

Authors:  Manuel Christoph Ketterer; A Aschendorff; S Arndt; I Speck; A K Rauch; R Beck; F Hassepass
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Suitable Electrode Choice for Robotic-Assisted Cochlear Implant Surgery: A Systematic Literature Review of Manual Electrode Insertion Adverse Events.

Authors:  Paul Van de Heyning; Peter Roland; Luis Lassaletta; Sumit Agrawal; Marcus Atlas; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Kevin Brown; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Dazert; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Rudolf Hagen; Abdulrahman Hagr; Greg Eigner Jablonski; Mohan Kameswaran; Vladislav Kuzovkov; Martin Leinung; Yongxin Li; Andreas Loth; Astrid Magele; Robert Mlynski; Joachim Mueller; Lorne Parnes; Andreas Radeloff; Chris Raine; Gunesh Rajan; Joachim Schmutzhard; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Georg Sprinzl; Hinrich Staecker; Timo Stöver; Dayse Tavora-Viera; Vedat Topsakal; Shin-Ichi Usami; Vincent Van Rompaey; Nora M Weiss; Wilhelm Wimmer; Mario Zernotti; Javier Gavilan
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-03-24

7.  Variations in microanatomy of the human modiolus require individualized cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Markus Pietsch; Daniel Schurzig; Rolf Salcher; Athanasia Warnecke; Peter Erfurt; Thomas Lenarz; Andrej Kral
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 4.996

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.