Reduced Spread of Electric Field After Surgical Removal of Intracochlear Schwannoma and 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:
12 2020
Historique:
entrez: 25 1 2021
pubmed: 26 1 2021
medline: 15 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The primary aim of the study was to explore whether reduced spread of electrical field is observed after partial or subtotal cochleoectomy and cochlear implantation compared with standard cochlear implantation. Secondarily, the influence on speech perception was explored comparing both groups. Nonconcurrent cohort study. Monocentric study at a tertiary referral center. Twenty adult cochlear implant (CI) users after tumor resection with cochleoectomy of varying extent and 20 electrode-matched CI users with standard electrode insertion. Partial and subtotal cochleoectomy for tumor removal and CI. Trans-impedance, electrically evoked compound action potentials, and word recognition were measured. Relative impedance was computed as a function of distance between the stimulation and recording electrode. Trans-impedance was smaller and more homogeneous in patients with partial or subtotal cochleoectomy than in the control group. In the tumor group, the mean relative impedance decreased to 0.20 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.03) at a distance of 1 electrode and to 0.25 (SD = 0.04) in the control group. After excluding seven patients with a second tumor in the internal auditory canal or cerebellopontine angle, with transmodiolar tumors, after near total cochleoectomy, or only extended cochleostomy, word recognition was 61% (SD = 19%) at 3 months and 75% (SD = 19%) at 12 months after activation of the audio processor in the tumor group. At 12 months, it was significantly (p < 0.05) better than in the control group (3 mo: 45%, SD = 25%; 12 mo: 53%, SD = 26%). A smaller trans-impedance is associated with a better word recognition. We conclude that the surgical technique used for CI surgery after subtotal cochleoectomy reduces the spread of the electric field and overcomes the potential drawbacks in structure preservation associated with that technique.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33492805
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002884
pii: 00129492-202012000-00047
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1297-e1303

Références

Dubernard X, Somers T, Veros K, et al. Clinical presentation of intralabyrinthine schwannomas: A multicenter study of 110 cases. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35:1641–1649.
Choudhury B, Carlson ML, Jethanamest D. Intralabyrinthine schwannomas: Disease presentation, tumor management, and hearing rehabilitation. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019; 80:196–202.
van Abel KM, Carlson ML, Link MJ, et al. Primary inner ear schwannomas: A case series and systematic review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:1957–1966.
Plontke SK, Fröhlich L, Wagner L, et al. How much cochlea do you need for cochlear implantation? Otol Neurotol 2020; 41:694–703.
Holder JT, Yawn RJ, Nassiri AM, et al. Matched cohort comparison indicates superiority of precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:1160–1166.
Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 2017; 356:93–103.
Plontke SK, Kösling S, Rahne T. Cochlear implantation after partial or subtotal cochleoectomy for intracochlear schwannoma removal—a technical report. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:365–371.
Kuthubutheen J, Grewal A, Symons S, et al. The effect of cochlear size on cochlear implantation outcomes. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019:5849871.
Srinivasan AG, Padilla M, Shannon RV, Landsberger DM. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2013; 299:29–36.
Smith ZM, Parkinson WS, Long CJ. Multipolar current focusing increases spectral resolution in cochlear implants. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013; 2013:2796–2799.
Berenstein CK, Mens LHM, Mulder JJS, Vanpoucke FJ. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: Comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear 2008; 29:250–260.
Büchner A, Illg A, Majdani O, Lenarz T. Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0174900.
Biesheuvel JD, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM. A novel algorithm to derive spread of excitation based on deconvolution. Ear Hear 2016; 37:572–581.
Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24 M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20:45–59.
van der Beek FB, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM. Effects of parameter manipulations on spread of excitation measured with electrically-evoked compound action potentials. Int J Audiol 2012; 51:465–474.
Vanpoucke FJ, Boermans P-PB, Frijns JH. Assessing the placement of a cochlear electrode array by multidimensional scaling. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012; 59:307–310.
Neuburger J, Lenarz T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Büchner A. Spontaneous increases in impedance following cochlear implantation: Suspected causes and management. Int J Audiol 2009; 48:233–239.
Wolfe J, Baker RS, Wood M. Clinical case study review: Steroid-responsive change in electrode impedance. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:227–232.
Ishai R, Herrmann BS, Nadol JB, Quesnel AM. The pattern and degree of capsular fibrous sheaths surrounding cochlear electrode arrays. Hear Res 2017; 348:44–53.
Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 1998; 118:313–326.
Senn P, Shepherd RK, Fallon JB. Focused electrical stimulation using a single current source. J Neural Eng 2018; 15:56018.
Rahne T, Hocke T, Strauß C, Kösling S, Fröhlich L, Plontke SK. Perioperative recording of cochlear implant evoked brain stem responses after removal of the intralabyrinthine portion of a vestibular schwannoma in a patient with NF2. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:e20–e24.
Dziemba OC, Hocke T, Müller A, Kaftan H. Excitation characteristic of a bipolar stimulus for broadband stimulation in measurements of electrically evoked auditory potentials. Z Med Phys 2018; 28:73–77.
Zuniga MG, Rivas A, Hedley-Williams A, et al. Tip fold-over in cochlear implantation: Case series. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:199–206.
Hey M, Böhnke B, Dillier N, et al. The intra-cochlear impedance-matrix (IIM) test for the Nucleus cochlear implant. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2015; 60:123–133.
Dombrowski T, Rankovic V, Moser T. Toward the optical cochlear implant. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2019; 9:a033225.
Carlson ML, Neff BA, Sladen DP, Link MJ, Driscoll CL. Cochlear implantation in patients with intracochlear and intralabyrinthine schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37:647–653.

Auteurs

Luise Wagner (L)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Halle, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH