Literature DB >> 31083083

Further Evidence of the Relationship Between Cochlear Implant Electrode Positioning and Hearing Outcomes.

Srijata Chakravorti1, Jack H Noble1,2,3, René H Gifford2, Benoit M Dawant1, Brendan P O'Connell3, Jianing Wang1, Robert F Labadie3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative imaging studies by numerous groups have revealed that final cochlear implant (CI) electrode position impacts audiological outcomes with scalar location consistently shown to be a significant factor. Modiolar proximity has been less extensively studied, and findings regarding the effect of insertion depth have been inconsistent.
METHODS: Using previously developed automated algorithms, we determined CI electrode position in an Institutional Review Board-approved database of 220 CI ears. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used to analyze the relationship between audiological outcomes and factors including age, duration of CI use, device type, and electrode position.
RESULTS: For precurved arrays, GLM revealed that scalar position, modiolar proximity, base insertion depth, and sex were significant factors for Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words (R = 0.43, p < 0.001, n = 92 arrays), while scalar position, modiolar proximity, age, and postlingual onset of deafness were significant for Bamford-Kawal-Bench Sentences in Noise (BKB-SIN) (R = 0.51, p < 0.001, n = 85) scores. Other factors were not significant in the final model after controlling for these variables. For straight arrays, we found the insertion depth, postlingual deafness, and length of CI use to be highly significant (R = 0.47, p < 0.001) factors for CNC words (91 arrays), while for BKB-SIN scores the most significant (R = 0.47, p < 0.001) factors were insertion depth, younger age, and postlingual deafness (89 arrays).
CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the significance of electrode positioning in audiological outcomes. The most significant positional predictors of outcome for precurved arrays were full scala tympani (ST) insertion and the modiolar distance, while for the lateral wall arrays the depth of insertion was the most significant factor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31083083      PMCID: PMC6788798          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  45 in total

1.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; W S Parkinson; R S Tyler; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-07

2.  Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception.

Authors:  Kumiko Yukawa; Lawrence Cohen; Peter Blamey; Brian Pyman; Viruch Tungvachirakul; Stephen O'Leary
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults' spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation.

Authors:  Gitry Heydebrand; Sandra Hale; Lisa Potts; Brenda Gotter; Margaret Skinner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jon K Shallop; Anna Mary Peterson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

6.  Within-subject comparison of word recognition and spiral ganglion cell count in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Mohammad Seyyedi; Lucas M Viana; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Depth of electrode insertion and postoperative performance in humans with cochlear implants: a histopathologic study.

Authors:  Joonhan Lee; Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 1.854

8.  Quality control after cochlear implant surgery by means of rotational tomography.

Authors:  Antje Aschendorff; Ralf Kubalek; Bernd Turowski; Friedhelm Zanella; Albrecht Hochmuth; Martin Schumacher; Thomas Klenzner; Roland Laszig
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  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

10.  An artifact-robust, shape library-based algorithm for automatic segmentation of inner ear anatomy in post-cochlear-implantation CT.

Authors:  Fitsum A Reda; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2014-03-21
View more
  29 in total

1.  Atlas-based segmentation of cochlear microstructures in cone beam CT.

Authors:  Kimerly A Powell; Gregory J Wiet; Brad Hittle; Grace I Oswald; Jason P Keith; Don Stredney; Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-02-13       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Preoperative prediction of angular insertion depth of lateral wall cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  Mohammad M R Khan; Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-06-03

3.  Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

Authors:  Jessica M Wess; Nathaniel J Spencer; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Custom mastoid-fitting templates to improve cochlear implant electrode insertion trajectory.

Authors:  William G Morrel; Katherine E Riojas; Robert J Webster; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  A Graph-Based Method for Optimal Active Electrode Selection in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Erin Bratu; Robert Dwyer; Jack Noble
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2020-09-29

6.  Real-Time Localization of Cochlear-Implant Electrode Arrays Using Bipolar Impedance Sensing.

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

7.  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

8.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels for an array with large inter-electrode distances.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Preliminary Minimum Reporting Requirements for In-Vivo Neural Interface Research: I. Implantable Neural Interfaces.

Authors:  Calvin D Eiber; Jean Delbeke; Jorge Cardoso; Martijn de Neeling; Sam E John; Chang Won Lee; Jerry Skefos; Argus Sun; Dimiter Prodanov; Zach McKinney
Journal:  IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-22

10.  Association of Patient-Related Factors With Adult Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elise E Zhao; James R Dornhoffer; Catherine Loftus; Shaun A Nguyen; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 6.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.