Literature DB >> 32588169

Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images.

Fabiana Danieli1,2, Thomas Dermacy3, Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral4, Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis5, Dan Gnansia3, Miguel Angelo Hyppolito4,6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The use of image processing techniques to estimate the position of intra-cochlear electrodes has enabled the creation of personalized maps to meet the individual stimulation needs of cochlear implant (CI) recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel technique of electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in post-lingually deafened adult CI recipients.
METHODS: Based on postoperative CBCT images, the positioning of the electrodes was estimated in relation to the modiolus in 14 ears of 13 post-lingually deafened adult CI recipients. The electrodes sub-optimally positioned or involved in kinking and tip fold-over were deactivated. Speech perception scores in silence and in noise were obtained from subjects using the standard map and were followed up 4 weeks after image-based electrode deactivation reprogramming technique (IBEDRT). The participants selected their preferred map after 4 weeks of IBEDRT use.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant improvements in the speech recognition tests in silence and noise when comparing IBEDRT performance to the standard map. All participants elected the IBEDRT as their new preferred map.
CONCLUSIONS: IBEDRT is a promising technique for fitting CI recipients and minimizing channel interaction increased by the positioning of the electrodes sub-optimally placed, thereby improving their auditory performance. We propose a novel electrode deactivation technique based on postoperative CBCT imaging, with a limited number of deactivated electrodes and a low-dosing scanning which could be applied for clinical routine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory nerve; Cochlear implants; Image guidance; Speech perception; Stimulation strategy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32588169     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06156-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  29 in total

1.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Andrea Nobbe; Peter Schleich; Peter Nopp; Maurits H Voormolen; Paul H Van de Heyning
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Place pitch versus electrode location in a realistic computational model of the implanted human cochlea.

Authors:  Randy K Kalkman; Jeroen J Briaire; David M T Dekker; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Timothy A Holden; Gary H McClelland; Wendy S Parkinson; Clough Shelton; David C Kelsall; Zachary M Smith
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-30

5.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

6.  Cochlear implant failures and revision.

Authors:  Amy-Anne Donatelli Lassig; Teresa A Zwolan; Steven A Telian
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems.

Authors:  S B Waltzman; N L Cohen; J T Roland
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-07

8.  Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Steven M Bierer; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 9.  Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

10.  Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.802

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Tobias Goehring
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-08-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.