Transimpedance Matrix Measurements Reliably Detect Electrode Tip Fold-over in 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:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
entrez:
12
11
2021
pubmed:
13
11
2021
medline:
11
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
During cochlear implantation, electrophysiological tests are performed to document safe technical functioning of implant and electrodes. In rare cases, the apical part of the electrode folds over during insertion. The data from transimpedance matrix (TIM) measurements enable the generation of a heat map or TIM profile measuring the spatial distribution of voltage. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of heat-map TIM profiles and compare them with spread of excitation (SOE) measurements and intraoperative imaging for prediction of electrode malposition. Non-randomized study. Tertiary referral center. One hundred patients who underwent cochlear implantation with completed TIM measurements, SOE data and perioperative imaging met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The electrophysiological data on the electrode array positioning was compared with temporal bone imaging. In seven cases, TIM measurements showed irregular results. In two cases, irregular TIM profiles were registered, but SOE data and 3D x-ray of the temporal bone didn't display deviated electrode positioning. A 3D x-ray of the skull displayed electrode tip fold-over in four cases and electrode buckling in one case. Sensitivity of TIM measurements and SOE data was 100%, specificity of TIM measurements was 97.89%, and specificity of SOE data was 98.93%. Out of 100 patients using TIM measurements for detection of electrode malpositioning, no false negative cases were detected. TIM measurements successfully detect electrode malposition in an intraoperative setting. Different heat map patterns may be observed depending on location and type of malposition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34766947
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003334
pii: 00129492-202112000-00021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1494-e1502Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Références
Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 2014; 124: (suppl): S1–S7.
Hamzavi J, Baumgartner WD, Pok SM, Franz P, Gstoettner W. Variables affecting speech perception in postlingually deaf adults following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2003; 123:493–498.
Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005; 115:796–802.
Zuniga MG, Rivas A, Hedley-Williams A, et al. Tip fold-over in cochlear implantation: case series. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38:199–206.
Trakimas DR, Kozin ED, Ghanad I, Nadol JB Jr, Remenschneider AK. Human otopathologic findings in cases of folded cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:970–978.
Wardrop P, Whinney D, Rebscher SJ, Roland JT Jr, Luxford W, Leake PA. A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: Comparison of nucleus banded and nucleus contour electrodes. Hear Res 2005; 203:54–67.
Sabban D, Parodi M, Blanchard M, Ettienne V, Rouillon I, Loundon N. Intra-cochlear electrode tip fold-over. Cochlear Implants Int 2018; 19:225–229.
Lassig AA, Zwolan TA, Telian SA. Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26:624–634.
Wesarg T, Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Zirn S. Intraoperative audiological-technical diagnostics during cochlear implant surgery. HNO 2014; 62:725–734.
Mason S. Electrophysiologic and objective monitoring of the cochlear implant during surgery: implementation, audit and outcomes. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: (suppl): S33–S38.
Christov F, Munder P, Berg L, Bagus H, Lang S, Arweiler-Harbeck D. ECAP analysis in cochlear implant patients as a function of patient's age and electrode-design. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2016; 133: (suppl): S1–S3.
de Rijk SR, Tam YC, Carlyon RP, Bance ML. Detection of extracochlear electrodes in cochlear implants with electric field imaging/transimpedance measurements: a human Cadaver study. Ear Hear 2020; 41:1196–1207.
Mittmann P, Lauer G, Ernst A, et al. Electrophysiological detection of electrode fold-over in perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays: a multi-center study case series. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 277:31–35.
Mittmann P, Todt I, Ernst A, et al. Radiological and NRT-ratio-based estimation of slim straight cochlear implant electrode positions: a multicenter study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2017; 126:73–78.
Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F, et al. Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational x-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30:27–33.
Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, Cowan RS. Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res 2003; 179:72–87.
Cohen LT, Saunders E, Richardson LM. Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 2004; 43:346–355.
Müller A, Kropp MH, Mir-Salim P, Aristeidou A, Dziemba OC. Intraoperatives tip-foldover-screening mittels spread of excitation Messungen. Z Med Phys 2020; 31:276–288.
McJunkin JL, Durakovic N, Herzog J, Buchman CA. Early outcomes with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39:e28–e33.
Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Turowski B, et al. Quality control after cochlear implant surgery by means of rotational tomography. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26:34–37.
Klabbers TM, Huinck WJ, Heutink F, Verbist BM, Mylanus EAM. Transimpedance matrix (TIM) measurement for the detection of intraoperative electrode tip foldover using the slim modiolar electrode: a proof of concept study. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42:e124–e129.
Abbas PJ, Tejani VD, Scheperle RA, Brown CJ. Using neural response telemetry to monitor physiological responses to acoustic stimulation in hybrid cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2017; 38:409–425.
Mittmann P, Todt I, Ernst A, et al. Electrophysiological detection of scalar changing perimodiolar cochlear electrode arrays: a long term follow-up study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273:4251–4256.
Swaddiwudhipong N, Jiang C, Landry TG, Bance M. Investigating the electrical properties of different cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42:59–67.
Walkowiak A, Kostek B, Lorens A, Obrycka A, Wasowski A, Skarzynski H. Spread of Excitation (SoE)--a non-invasive assessment of cochlear implant electrode placement. Cochlear Implants Int 2010; 11: (suppl): 479–481.
Cosetti MK, Troob SH, Latzman JM, Shapiro WH, Roland JT Jr, Waltzman SB. An evidence-based algorithm for intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33:169–176.
Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. Review on cochlear implant electrode array tip fold-over and scalar deviation. J Otol 2019; 14:94–100.