Literature DB >> 31192901

Intracochlear Pressure Transients During Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion: Effect of Micro-mechanical Control on Limiting Pressure Trauma.

Renee M Banakis Hartl1, Christopher Kaufmann2, Marlan R Hansen2, Daniel J Tollin1,3.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Use of micro-mechanical control during cochlear implant (CI) electrode insertion will result in reduced number and magnitude of pressure transients when compared with standard insertion by hand.
INTRODUCTION: With increasing focus on hearing preservation during CI surgery, atraumatic electrode insertion is of the utmost importance. It has been established that large intracochlear pressure spikes can be generated during the insertion of implant electrodes. Here, we examine the effect of using a micro-mechanical insertion control tool on pressure trauma exposures during implantation.
METHODS: Human cadaveric heads were surgically prepared with an extended facial recess. Electrodes from three manufacturers were placed both by using a micro-mechanical control tool and by hand. Insertions were performed at three different rates: 0.2 mm/s, 1.2 mm/s, and 2 mm/s (n = 20 each). Fiber-optic sensors measured pressures in scala vestibuli and tympani.
RESULTS: Electrode insertion produced pressure transients up to 174 dB SPL. ANOVA revealed that pressures were significantly lower when using the micro-mechanical control device compared with insertion by hand (p << 0.001). No difference was noted across electrode type or speed. Chi-square analysis showed a significantly lower proportion of insertions contained pressure spikes when the control system was used (p << 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Results confirm previous data that suggest CI electrode insertion can cause pressure transients with intensities similar to those elicited by high-level sounds. Results suggest that the use of a micro-mechanical insertion control system may mitigate trauma from pressure events, both by reducing the amplitude and the number of pressure spikes resulting from CI electrode insertion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31192901      PMCID: PMC6578873          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002164

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


  44 in total

1.  A pilot study of robot-assisted cochlear implant surgery using steerable electrode arrays.

Authors:  Jian Zhang; Kai Xu; Nabil Simaan; Spiros Manolidis
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2006

2.  The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford; Anthony J Spahr; Sharon A McKarns
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  An automated insertion tool for cochlear implants with integrated force sensing capability.

Authors:  Jan-Philipp Kobler; Daniel Beckmann; Thomas S Rau; Omid Majdani; Tobias Ortmaier
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Intracochlear Measurements of Interaural Time and Level Differences Conveyed by Bilateral Bone Conduction Systems.

Authors:  Nyssa F Farrell; Renee M Banakis Hartl; Victor Benichoux; Andrew D Brown; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 5.  Outcomes review of modern hearing preservation technique in cochlear implant.

Authors:  Sally Nguyen; François Cloutier; Daniel Philippon; Mathieu Côté; Richard Bussières; Douglas D Backous
Journal:  Auris Nasus Larynx       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 1.863

6.  Insertional depth-dependent intracochlear pressure changes in a model of cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Marlene Mittmann; Arneborg Ernst; Philipp Mittmann; Ingo Todt
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  Intracochlear sound pressure measurements in guinea pigs.

Authors:  A Dancer; R Franke
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Matthew L Carlson; Colin L W Driscoll; René H Gifford; Geoffrey J Service; Nicole M Tombers; Becky J Hughes-Borst; Brian A Neff; Charles W Beatty
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 9.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Priscila Carvalho Miranda; André Luiz Lopes Sampaio; Rafaela Aquino Fernandes Lopes; Alessandra Ramos Venosa; Carlos Augusto Costa Pires de Oliveira
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-03

10.  Intra- and Postoperative Electrocochleography May Be Predictive of Final Electrode Position and Postoperative Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan T Holder; Robert T Dwyer; René H Gifford; Jack H Noble; Marc L Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; George B Wanna; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  3 in total

1.  Review: Clinical perspective on hearing preservation in cochlear implantation, the University of Iowa experience.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Camille C Dunn
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 3.672

2.  Magnetic Steering of Robotically Inserted Lateral-wall Cochlear-implant Electrode Arrays Reduces Forces on the Basilar Membrane In Vitro.

Authors:  Cameron M Hendricks; Matt S Cavilla; David E Usevitch; Trevor L Bruns; Katherine E Riojas; Lisandro Leon; Robert J Webster; Frank M Warren; Jake J Abbott
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 2.619

Review 3.  Intracochlear fibrosis and the foreign body response to cochlear implant biomaterials.

Authors:  Megan J Foggia; Rene Vielman Quevedo; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-11-13
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.