OBJECTIVES: Describe audiologic outcomes in hearing preservation cochlear implantation (CI) using a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath and evaluate association of electrode positioning and preservation of residual hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary otologic center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients who underwent hearing preservation CI with precurved electrode array. INTERVENTIONS: CI, intraoperative computed tomography (CT) OUTCOME MEASURES:: Audiologic measures (consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words, AzBio sentences, low-frequency pure tone averages [LFPTA]) and electrode location (scalar location, electrode-to-modiolus distance ((Equation is included in full-text article.)), angular insertion depth). RESULTS: Twenty-four adults with less than 80 dB LFPTA with a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath; 16 underwent intraoperative CT. LFPTA was 58.5 dB HL preoperatively, with a 17.3 dB threshold shift at CI activation (p = 0.005). CNC word scores improved from 6% preoperatively to 64% at 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.0001). There was one scalar translocation and no tip fold-overs. The average angular insertion depth was 388.2 degrees, and the average (Equation is included in full-text article.)across all electrodes was 0.36 mm. Multivariate regression revealed a significant correlation between CNC scores at 6 months and angular insertion depth (p = 0.0122; r = 0.45, adjusted r = 0.35). Change in LFPTA was not significantly associated with angular insertion depth or (Equation is included in full-text article.). CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of translocation allows a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath to maintain hearing preservation rates comparable to straight electrode arrays. With scala tympani insertion, angular insertion depth is a positive marker of improved speech performance postoperatively but may be a confounder variable based on individual cochlear size.
OBJECTIVES: Describe audiologic outcomes in hearing preservation cochlear implantation (CI) using a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath and evaluate association of electrode positioning and preservation of residual hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary otologic center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients who underwent hearing preservation CI with precurved electrode array. INTERVENTIONS: CI, intraoperative computed tomography (CT) OUTCOME MEASURES:: Audiologic measures (consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words, AzBio sentences, low-frequency pure tone averages [LFPTA]) and electrode location (scalar location, electrode-to-modiolus distance ((Equation is included in full-text article.)), angular insertion depth). RESULTS: Twenty-four adults with less than 80 dB LFPTA with a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath; 16 underwent intraoperative CT. LFPTA was 58.5 dB HL preoperatively, with a 17.3 dB threshold shift at CI activation (p = 0.005). CNC word scores improved from 6% preoperatively to 64% at 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.0001). There was one scalar translocation and no tip fold-overs. The average angular insertion depth was 388.2 degrees, and the average (Equation is included in full-text article.)across all electrodes was 0.36 mm. Multivariate regression revealed a significant correlation between CNC scores at 6 months and angular insertion depth (p = 0.0122; r = 0.45, adjusted r = 0.35). Change in LFPTA was not significantly associated with angular insertion depth or (Equation is included in full-text article.). CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of translocation allows a precurved electrode array inserted using an external sheath to maintain hearing preservation rates comparable to straight electrode arrays. With scala tympani insertion, angular insertion depth is a positive marker of improved speech performance postoperatively but may be a confounder variable based on individual cochlear size.
Authors: Alex D Sweeney; Jacob B Hunter; Matthew L Carlson; Alejandro Rivas; Marc L Bennett; Rene H Gifford; Jack H Noble; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; George B Wanna Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: René H Gifford; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Christine Menapace; Barbara Buck; Jillian Crosson; Lori O'Neill; Anne Beiter; Phil Segel Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Jacob B Hunter; René H Gifford; George B Wanna; Robert F Labadie; Marc L Bennett; David S Haynes; Alejandro Rivas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Elizabeth L Perkins; Nauman F Manzoor; David S Haynes; Matthew O'Malley; René Gifford; Alejandro Rivas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311
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: Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Tim M Klabbers; Floris Heutink; Wendy J Huinck; Willem-Jan van der Woude; Berit M Verbist; Emmanuel A M Mylanus Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.236