Slim Perimodiolar Arrays Are as Effective as Slim Lateral Wall Arrays for Functional Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
17
3
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
17
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare functional hearing preservation (HP) with a slim perimodiolar array (SPA) and a slim lateral wall array (SLW) in cochlear implantation (CI). Retrospective chart review. Tertiary referral center. All adult, post-lingual CI recipients with serviceable preoperative hearing serially implanted with SPA or SLW electrodes from July 2015 through July 2018. Cochlear implantation. Hearing preservation (HP). Patients with a low frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) (125, 250, 500 Hz) threshold less than 80 dB were considered HP candidates based on preoperative audiograms. Postoperative audiograms were obtained before activation. Successful HP was defined as retention of LFPTA less than 80 dB. The change in LFPTA (ΔLFPTA) was also calculated. One hundred twenty one patients were implanted with either the SPA or SLW electrodes, 82 (42,40) of whom were HP candidates with postoperative audiograms. Average (standard deviation, SD) preoperative LFPTA was 54.86 [19.38] and 54.38 [13.58] dB for SLW and SPA respectively, with a mean ΔLFPTA of 24.6 [15.94] and 24.92 [16.66] dB. Successful HP was achieved in 21 (50%) and 22 (55%). Preoperative LFTPA, ΔLFPTA, and postoperative LFPTA were not significantly different (p = 0.89, 0.75, 0.93) between electrodes. The SPA is as effective at immediate functional HP after CI as a SLW.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32176154
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002622
pii: 00129492-202007000-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e674-e679Références
Gifford RH, Dorman M, Skarzynski H, et al. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 2013; 34:413–425.
Büchner A, Schüssler M, Battmer RD, Stöver T, Lesinski-schiedat A, Lenarz T. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurotol Basel 2009; 14:8–13.
Sheffield SW, Jahn K, Gifford RH. Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26:145–154.
Gfeller KE, Olszewski C, Turner C, et al. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurootol 2006; 11: (suppl): 12–15.
Skarzyński H, Lorens A, D’Haese P, et al. Preservation of residual hearing in children and post-lingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: an initial study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002; 64:247–253.
Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, et al. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124:272–280.
Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner WD, et al. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124:348–352.
Adunka O, Kiefer J, Unkelbach MH, et al. Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation. Laryngoscope 2004; 114:1237–1241.
Fischer N, Pinggera L, Weichbold V, et al. Radiologic and functional evaluation of electrode dislocation from the scala tympani to the scala vestibuli in patients with cochlear implants. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015; 36:372–377.
Wanna G, Noble J, Carlson M, et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 2014; 124: (suppl): S1–S7.
O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Wanna GB. The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016; 1:169–174.
Wright C, Roland PS. Vascular trauma during cochlear implantation: a contributor to residual hearing loss? Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:402–407.
Shepherd RK, Hatsushika S, Clark GM. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res 1993; 66:108–120.
Dietz A, Gazibegovic D, Tervaniemi J, et al. Insertion characteristics and placement of the Mid-Scala electrode array in human temporal bones using detailed cone beam computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273:4135–4143.
Hassepass F, Bulla S, Maier W, et al. The new mid-scala electrode array: a radiologic and histologic study in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35:1415–1420.
O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:1016–1023.
Frisch CD, Carlson ML, Lane JI, et al. Evaluation of a new mid-scala cochlear implant electrode using microcomputed tomography. Laryngoscope 2015; 125:2778–2783.
Svrakic M, Roland JT Jr, McMenomey SO, et al. Initial operative experience and short-term hearing preservation results with a mid-scala cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:1549–1554.
Hunter JB, Gifford RH, Wanna GB, et al. Hearing preservation outcomes with a mid-scala electrode in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:235–240.
Schendorff A, Briggs R, Brademann G, et al. Clinical investigation of the Nucleus Slim modiolar electrode. Audiol Neurootol 2017; 22:169–179.
Shaul C, Dragovic AS, Stringer AK, et al. Scalar localisation of peri-modiolar electrodes and speech perception outcomes. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132:1000–1006.
McJunkin JL, Durakovic N, Herzog J, et al. Early outcomes with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:e28–e33.
Iso-Mustajärvi M, Matikka H, Risi F, et al. A new slim modiolar electrode array for cochlear implantation: a radiological and histological study. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:e327–e334.
Santa Maria PL, Domville-Lewis C, Sucher CM, Chester-Browne R, Atlas MD. Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation--hearing and quality of life after 2 years. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:526–531.
Jurawitz MC, Büchner A, Harpel T, et al. Hearing preservation outcomes with different cochlear implant electrodes: Nucleus® Hybrid™-L24 and Nucleus Freedom™ CI422. Audiol Neurootol 2014; 19:293–309.
Van Abel KM, Dunn CC, Sladen DP, et al. Hearing preservation among patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36:416–421.
Hassepass F, Aschendorff A, Bulla S, et al. Radiologic results and hearing preservation with a straight narrow electrode via round window versus cochleostomy approach at initial activation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36:993–1000.
Nordfalk KF, Rasmussen K, Hopp E, Bunne M, Silvola JT, Jablonski GE. Insertion depth in cochlear implantation and outcome in residual hearing and vestibular function. Ear Hear 2016; 37:e129–e137.
Moran M, Dowell RC, Iseli C, Briggs RJS. Hearing preservation outcomes for 139 cochlear implant recipients using a thin straight electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:678–684.
Adunka OF, Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Gurgel RK, Buchman CA. Minimum reporting standards for adult cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 159:215–219.
Fabie JE, Keller RG, Hatch JL, et al. Evaluation of outcome variability associated with lateral wall, mid-scalar, and perimodiolar electrode arrays when controlling for preoperative patient characteristics. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:1122–1128.
O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Haynes DS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope 2017; 127:2352–2357.
Chakravorti S, Noble JH, Gifford RH, et al. Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:617–624.
Koka K, Riggs WJ, Dwyer R, et al. Intra-cochlear electrocochleography during cochlear implant electrode insertion is predictive of final scalar location. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:e654–e659.
Koka K, Saoji AA, Litvak LM. Electrocochleography in cochlear implant recipients with residual hearing: comparison with audiometric thresholds. Ear Hear 2017; 38:e161–e167.
Dalbert A, Pfiffner F, Hoesli M, et al. Assessment of cochlear function during cochlear implantation by extra- and intracochlear electrocochleography. Front Neurosci 2018; 12:18.
Dalbert A, Huber A, Veraguth D, et al. Assessment of cochlear trauma during cochlear implantation using electrocochleography and cone beam computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:446–453.
Friedmann DR, Peng R, Fang Y, McMenomey SO, Roland JT, Waltzman SB. Effects of loss of residual hearing on speech performance with the CI422 and the Hybrid-L electrode. Cochlear Implants Int 2015; 16:277–284.
Scheperle RA, Tejani VD, Omtvedt JK, et al. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing. Hear Res 2017; 350:45–57.
Choi J, Payne MR, Campbell LJ, et al. Electrode impedance fluctuations as a biomarker for inner ear pathology after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:1433–1439.