Literature DB >> 32569133

Insertion Depth for Optimized Positioning of Precurved Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Rueben A Banalagay1, Robert F Labadie2, Srijata Chakravorti1, Jack H Noble1.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Generic guidelines for insertion depth of precurved electrodes are suboptimal for many individuals.
BACKGROUND: Insertion depths that are too shallow result in decreased cochlear coverage, and ones that are too deep lift electrodes away from the modiolus and degrade the electro-neural interface. Guidelines for insertion depth are generically applied to all individuals using insertion depth markers on the array that can be referenced against anatomical landmarks.
METHODS: To normalize our measurements, we determined the optimal position and insertion vector where a precurved array best fits the cochlea for each patient in an IRB-approved, N = 131 subject CT database. The distances from the most basal electrode on an optimally placed array to anatomical landmarks, including the round window (RW) and facial recess (FR), was measured for all patients.
RESULTS: The standard deviations of the distance from the most basal electrode to the FR and RW are 0.65 mm and 0.26 mm, respectively. Owing to the high variability in FR distance, using the FR as a landmark to determine insertion depth results in >0.5 mm difference with ideal depth in 44% of cases. Alignment of either of the two most proximal RW markers with the RW would result in over-insertion failures for >80% of cases, whereas the use of the third, most medial marker would result in under-insertion in only 19% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Normalized measurements using the optimized insertion vector show low variance in distance from the basal electrode position to the RW, thereby suggesting it as a better landmark for determining insertion depth than the FR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32569133      PMCID: PMC8054969          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002726

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.619


  26 in total

1.  Intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  W Gstoettner; P Franz; J Hamzavi; H Plenk; W Baumgartner; C Czerny
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.494

Review 2.  How cochlear implants encode speech.

Authors:  Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.064

3.  Multicenter U.S. bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: speech perception over the first year of use.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman; Carol H Pillsbury; Marcia S Clark; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; Susan Amberg; Peter S Roland; Pamela Kruger; Michael A Novak; Julie A Wirth; Jennifer M Black; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; P Ashley Wackym; Jill B Firszt; Blake S Wilson; Dewey T Lawson; Reinhold Schatzer; Patrick S C D'Haese; Amy L Barco
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Variance of angular insertion depths in free-fitting and perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  Andreas Radeloff; Martin Mack; Mehran Baghi; Wolfgang K Gstoettner; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results.

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

6.  Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Matthew L Carlson; René H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; David S Haynes; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Automatic segmentation of intracochlear anatomy in conventional CT.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; Omid Majdani; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study.

Authors:  Ruth Litovsky; Aaron Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli; Carol Sammeth
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Preliminary Results With Image-guided Cochlear Implant Insertion Techniques.

Authors:  Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  2 in total

1.  Automated objective surgical planning for lateral skull base tumors.

Authors:  A E Rajesh; J T Rubinstein; M Ferreira; A P Patel; R A Bly; G D Kohlberg
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Variations in microanatomy of the human modiolus require individualized cochlear implantation.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.