Literature DB >> 35170555

Early Hearing Preservation Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation With New Slim Lateral Wall Electrode Using Electrocochleography.

Amit Walia1, Matthew A Shew1, Abhinav Ettyreddy2, Shannon M Lefler1, Pawina Jiramongkolchai1, Cameron C Wick1, Nedim Durakovic1, Craig A Buchman1, Jacques A Herzog1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Describe early hearing preservation (HP) cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes using a new slim lateral wall electrode (SLWE). STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adult CI candidates with preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA; 125, 250, 500 Hz) ≤60 dB HL. INTERVENTION: CI with and without intracochlear real-time electrocochleography (RT-ECochG). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: HP (LFPTA ≤80 dB HL), LFPTA shift, speech-perception performance measures, postoperative CT reconstruction.
RESULTS: Forty-two subjects were implanted with the SLWE. Thirty patients underwent full insertion without RT-ECochG feedback, and HP was maintained at 3-months postactivation for 7 (23.3%) patients with mean LFPTA shift of 57.5 ± 25.6 dB HL. RT-ECochG feedback was utilized on 12 patients, of whom 6 patients had full insertions and 6 patients had anywhere from 1 to 3 electrodes left outside of the cochlea based on RT-ECochG feedback. At 3 months postoperatively, HP was achieved on 10 (83.3%) patients and mean LFPTA shift was 18.9 c 11.7 dB HL. Mean difference between LFPTA threshold shift at 3-months postactivation with and without RT-ECochG was 38.6 dB HL (95% CI, 25.6-51.67). There was an improvement in delta CNC from preoperative to 3-months postactivation when using RT-ECochG, with mean difference 20.7% (95% CI, 3.3-38.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of RT-ECochG monitoring during SLWE placement results in fewer full electrode insertions and significantly better HP rates and speech-perception outcomes when compared with unmonitored insertions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate long-term audiologic outcomes to better understand the relationships among ECochG, cochlear trauma, functional outcomes, and HP.
Copyright © 2022, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35170555      PMCID: PMC8959404          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003475

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


  43 in total

1.  Patterns Seen During Electrode Insertion Using Intracochlear Electrocochleography Obtained Directly Through a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Christopher K Giardina; Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan T Holder; Robert T Dwyer; Kanthaiah Koka; Robert F Labadie; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Craig A Buchman; Margaret T Dillon; English R King; Marcia C Adunka; Oliver F Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Intracochlear electrocochleography during cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Nathan H Calloway; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Adam P Campbell; Claire Iseli; Stephen Pulver; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Cochlear duct length-one size fits all?

Authors:  J F Thong; D Low; A Tham; C Liew; T Y Tan; H W Yuen
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 1.808

5.  Initial hearing preservation outcomes of cochlear implantation with a slim perimodiolar electrode array.

Authors:  Erika Woodson; Rebecca Chota Nelson; Molly Smeal; Thomas Haberkamp; Sarah Sydlowski
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2021-01-14

6.  Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peter Luke Santa Maria; Michael Brian Gluth; Yongqing Yuan; Marcus David Atlas; Nikolas H Blevins
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Leonid M Litvak; Susan Van Wie; Rene H Gifford; Philipos C Loizou; Louise M Loiselle; Tyler Oakes; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant.

Authors:  Bernard Fraysse; Angel Ramos Macías; Olivier Sterkers; Sandro Burdo; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Deguine; Thomas Klenzner; Thomas Lenarz; Manuel Manrique Rodriguez; Ernst Von Wallenberg; Chris James
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach.

Authors:  Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Anna Piotrowska; Ilona Anderson
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.494

View more
  1 in total

1.  Is Characteristic Frequency Limiting Real-Time Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation?

Authors:  Amit Walia; Matthew A Shew; Shannon M Lefler; Dorina Kallogjeri; Cameron C Wick; Timothy A Holden; Nedim Durakovic; Amanda J Ortmann; Jacques A Herzog; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.152

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.