M C Ketterer1, A Aschendorff2, S Arndt2, F Hassepass2, T Wesarg2, R Laszig2, R Beck2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Killianstrasse 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. Manuel.ketterer@gmx.de. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Killianstrasse 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
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.
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
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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