Literature DB >> 34686938

Access and Polarization Electrode Impedance Changes in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Delayed Loss of Acoustic Hearing.

Viral D Tejani1,2, Hyejin Yang3, Jeong-Seo Kim4,5, Helin Hernandez6, Jacob J Oleson6, Marlan R Hansen4,7,8, Bruce J Gantz4,7, Paul J Abbas4,5, Carolyn J Brown4,5.   

Abstract

Acoustic hearing can be preserved after cochlear implant (CI) surgery, allowing for combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) and superior speech understanding compared to electric-only hearing. Among patients who initially retain useful acoustic hearing, 30-40 % experience a delayed hearing loss that occurs 3 or more months after CI activation. Increases in electrode impedances have been associated with delayed loss of residual acoustic hearing, suggesting a possible role of intracochlear inflammation/fibrosis as reported by Scheperle et al. (Hear Res 350:45-57, 2017) and Shaul et al. (Otol Neurotol 40(5):e518-e526, 2019). These studies measured only total impedance. Total impedance consists of a composite of access resistance, which reflects resistance of the intracochlear environment, and polarization impedance, which reflects resistive and capacitive properties of the electrode-electrolyte interface as described by Dymond (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 23(4):274-280, 1976) and Tykocinski et al. (Otol Neurotol 26(5):948-956, 2005). To explore the role of access and polarization impedance components in loss of residual acoustic hearing, these measures were collected from Nucleus EAS CI users with stable acoustic hearing and subsequent precipitous loss of hearing. For the hearing loss group, total impedance and access resistance increased over time while polarization impedance remained stable. For the stable hearing group, total impedance and access resistance were stable while polarization impedance declined. Increased access resistance rather than polarization impedance appears to drive the increase in total impedances seen with loss of hearing. Moreover, access resistance has been correlated with intracochlear fibrosis/inflammation in animal studies as observed by Xu et al. (Hear Res 105(1-2):1-29, 1997) and Tykocinski et al. (Hear Res 159(1-2):53-68, 2001). These findings thus support intracochlear inflammation as one contributor to loss of acoustic hearing in our EAS CI population.
© 2021. Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hybrid; access resistance; electric-acoustic stimulation; hearing preservation; impedance; polarization impedance

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34686938      PMCID: PMC8782980          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-021-00809-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  48 in total

1.  Long-term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds for the Ineraid cochlear implant.

Authors:  M F Dorman; L M Smith; K Dankowski; G McCandless; J L Parkin
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1992-10

2.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Predicting the effect of post-implant cochlear fibrosis on residual hearing.

Authors:  Chul-Hee Choi; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

Authors:  P A Busby; K L Plant; L A Whitford
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2002-09

Review 5.  Minimizing intracochlear trauma during cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

6.  Music perception in electric acoustic stimulation users as assessed by the Mu.S.I.C. test.

Authors:  S J Brockmeier; M Peterreins; A Lorens; K Vermeire; S Helbig; I Anderson; H Skarzynski; P Van de Heyning; W Gstoettner; J Kiefer
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

7.  Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-05

8.  Electrode Impedance Fluctuations as a Biomarker for Inner Ear Pathology After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  June Choi; Matthew R Payne; Luke J Campbell; Christo W Bester; Carrie Newbold; Hayden Eastwood; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Preservation of basal inner ear structures in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Oliver Adunka; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Markus Hambek; Marc H Unkelbach; Andreas Radeloff; Jan Kiefer
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.538

10.  Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Bruce Gantz; Richard S Tyler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

View more
  2 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.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Impedance as Potential Biomarker for Residual Hearing.

Authors:  Wilhelm Wimmer; Luca Sclabas; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Weder
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 4.086

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.