OBJECTIVE: Improper electrode placement during cochlear implant (CI) insertion can adversely affect speech perception outcomes. However, the intraoperative methods to determine positioning are limited. Because measures of electrode impedance can be made quickly, the goal of this study was to assess the relationship between CI impedance and proximity to adjacent structures. METHODS: An Advanced Bionics CI array was inserted into a clear, plastic cochlea one electrode contact at a time in a saline bath (nine trials). At each insertion depth, response to biphasic current pulses was used to calculate access resistance (Ra), polarization resistance (Rp), and polarization capacitance (Cp). These measures were correlated to actual proximity as assessed by microscopy using linear regression models. RESULTS: Impedance increased with insertion depth and proximity to the inner wall. Specifically, Ra increased, Cp decreased, and Rp slightly increased. Incorporating all impedance measures afforded a prediction model (r = 0.88) while optimizing for sub-mm positioning afforded a model with 78.3% specificity. CONCLUSION: Impedance in vitro greatly changes with electrode insertion depth and proximity to adjacent structures in a predicable manner. SIGNIFICANCE: Assessing proximity of the CI to adjacent structures is a significant first step in qualifying the electrode-neural interface. This information should aid in CI fitting, which should help maximize hearing and speech outcomes with a CI. Additionally, knowledge of the relationship between impedance and positioning could have utility in other tissue implants in the brain, retina, or spinal cord.
OBJECTIVE: Improper electrode placement during cochlear implant (CI) insertion can adversely affect speech perception outcomes. However, the intraoperative methods to determine positioning are limited. Because measures of electrode impedance can be made quickly, the goal of this study was to assess the relationship between CI impedance and proximity to adjacent structures. METHODS: An Advanced Bionics CI array was inserted into a clear, plastic cochlea one electrode contact at a time in a saline bath (nine trials). At each insertion depth, response to biphasic current pulses was used to calculate access resistance (Ra), polarization resistance (Rp), and polarization capacitance (Cp). These measures were correlated to actual proximity as assessed by microscopy using linear regression models. RESULTS: Impedance increased with insertion depth and proximity to the inner wall. Specifically, Ra increased, Cp decreased, and Rp slightly increased. Incorporating all impedance measures afforded a prediction model (r = 0.88) while optimizing for sub-mm positioning afforded a model with 78.3% specificity. CONCLUSION: Impedance in vitro greatly changes with electrode insertion depth and proximity to adjacent structures in a predicable manner. SIGNIFICANCE: Assessing proximity of the CI to adjacent structures is a significant first step in qualifying the electrode-neural interface. This information should aid in CI fitting, which should help maximize hearing and speech outcomes with a CI. Additionally, knowledge of the relationship between impedance and positioning could have utility in other tissue implants in the brain, retina, or spinal cord.
Authors: Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Adam P Campbell; Adam T Campbell; Baishakhi Choudhury; Margaret T Dillon; Margaret P Dillon; Mathieu Forgues; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Chin-Tuan Tan; Mario Svirsky; Abbas Anwar; Shaun Kumar; Bernie Caessens; Paul Carter; Claudiu Treaba; J Thomas Roland Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Oliver F Adunka; Christopher K Giardina; Eric J Formeister; Baishakhi Choudhury; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lirong Tan; Scott K Holland; Aniruddha K Deshpande; Ye Chen; Daniel I Choo; Long J Lu Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Trevor L Bruns; Katherine E Riojas; Robert F Labadie; Robert J Webster Iii Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Viral D Tejani; Hyejin Yang; Jeong-Seo Kim; Helin Hernandez; Jacob J Oleson; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: Yu Dong; Jeroen J Briaire; Michael Siebrecht; H Christiaan Stronks; Johan H M Frijns Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2021 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.570