Association between lateral wall electrode array insertion parameters and audiological outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation.
Angular insertion depth
Cochlear duct length
Cochlear implant
Frequency-to-place mismatch
Lateral wall electrode
Speech recognition
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
13
01
2022
accepted:
15
11
2022
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
28
11
2022
entrez:
27
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of this study were to compare speech recognition at different postoperative times for both ears in bilaterally implanted patients and to assess the influence of the time of deafness, frequency-to-place mismatch, angular insertion depth (AID) and angular separation between neighbouring electrode contacts on audiometric outcomes. This study was performed at an academic tertiary referral centre. A total of 19 adult patients (6 men, 13 women), who received sequential bilateral implantation with lateral wall electrode arrays, were analysed in retrospective. Statistical analysis was performed using two-sided t test, Wilcoxon test, median test, and Spearman's correlation. Postlingually deafened patients (deafness after the age of 10) had a significantly better speech perception (WRS65[CI]) than the perilingually deafened subjects (deafness at the age of 1-10 years) (p < 0.001). Comparison of cochlear duct length between peri- and postlingually deafened subjects showed a slightly significantly smaller cochleae in perilingual patients (p = 0.045). No association between frequency-to-place mismatch as well as angular separation and speech perception could be detected. There was even no significant difference between the both ears in the intraindividual comparison, even if insertion parameters differed. The exact electrode position seems to have less influence on the speech comprehension of CI patients than already established parameters as preoperative speech recognition or duration of deafness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36436080
doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07756-2
pii: 10.1007/s00405-022-07756-2
pmc: PMC10175364
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2707-2714Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Hardy M (1938) The length of the organ of corti in man. Am J Anat 62:291–333
doi: 10.1002/aja.1000620204
Escude B, James C, Deguine O, Cochard N, Eter E, Fraysse B (2006) The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 11:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000095611
doi: 10.1159/000095611
pubmed: 17063008
Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM (1996) Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal’s canal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:701–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949610500906
doi: 10.1177/000348949610500906
pubmed: 8800056
Ketten DR, Skinner MW, Wang G, Vannier MW, Gates GA, Neely JG (1998) In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 175:1–16
pubmed: 9826942
Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species–29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399052
doi: 10.1121/1.399052
pubmed: 2373794
Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA (2007) Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:220–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9
doi: 10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9
pubmed: 17318276
pmcid: 2394499
Hochmair I, Arnold W, Nopp P, Jolly C, Muller J, Roland P (2003) Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol 123:612–617
pubmed: 12875584
Yukawa K, Cohen L, Blamey P, Pyman B, Tungvachirakul V, O’Leary S (2004) Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurootol 9:163–172. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077267
doi: 10.1159/000077267
pubmed: 15084821
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowell RC, Hollow RD (1992) Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:342–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949210100410
doi: 10.1177/000348949210100410
pubmed: 1562140
Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT Jr, Svirsky M (2015) The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36:e207–e213. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163
pubmed: 25860624
pmcid: 4549170
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buchman CA, Buss E, O’Connell BP, Rooth MA, King ER, Pillsbury HC, Adunka OF, Brown KD (2021) Long-term influence of electrode array length on speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 131:892–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28949
doi: 10.1002/lary.28949
pubmed: 32738069
ANSI/ASA (1997) Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. American National Standard Institute, New York, p S3
Craveiro A, Hoppe U (2021) Side difference in pure tone and speech audiometry. Laryngorhinootologie 100:229. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728467
doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728467
De Seta D, Nguyen Y, Bonnard D, Ferrary E, Godey B, Bakhos D, Mondain M, Deguine O, Sterkers O, Bernardeschi D, Mosnier I (2016) The role of electrode placement in bilateral simultaneously cochlear-implanted adult patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 155:485–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816645774
doi: 10.1177/0194599816645774
pubmed: 27165685
Buchman CA, Dillon MT, King ER, Adunka MC, Adunka OF, Pillsbury HC (2014) Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol 35:1773–1779. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000541
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000541
pubmed: 25122601
O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, Francis DO, Noble JH, Labadie RF, Zuniga G, Dawant BM, Rivas A, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37:1016–1023. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001125
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001125
pubmed: 27348391
pmcid: 4983244
Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34:342–360. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7
pubmed: 23348845
pmcid: 3636188
Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, Whiting BR, Chole RA, Neely GJ, Hullar TE, Skinner MW (2008) Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 29:920–928. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f492
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f492
pubmed: 18667935
pmcid: 2663852
Gani M, Valentini G, Sigrist A, Kos MI, Boex C (2007) Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-006-0065-4
doi: 10.1007/s10162-006-0065-4
pubmed: 17216585
pmcid: 2538415
Ketterer MC, Aschendorff A, Arndt S, Beck R (2021) Electrode array design determines scalar position, dislocation rate and angle and postoperative speech perception. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07160-2
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07160-2
pubmed: 34778920
pmcid: 9363368
World Medical A (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Henkin Y, Taitelbaum-Swead R, Hildesheimer M, Migirov L, Kronenberg J, Kishon-Rabin L (2008) Is there a right cochlear implant advantage? Otol Neurotol 29:489–494. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31816fd6e5
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31816fd6e5
pubmed: 18401283
Henkin Y, Swead RT, Roth DA, Kishon-Rabin L, Shapira Y, Migirov L, Hildesheimer M, Kaplan-Neeman R (2014) Evidence for a right cochlear implant advantage in simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 124:1937–1941. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24635
doi: 10.1002/lary.24635
pubmed: 24496728
Koch RW, Ladak HM, Elfarnawany M, Agrawal SK (2017) Measuring Cochlear Duct Length—a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 46:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2
doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2
pubmed: 28270200
pmcid: 5341452
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O’Connell BP (2019) Validating a new tablet-based tool in the determination of cochlear implant angular insertion depth. Otol Neurotol 40:1006–1010. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002296
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002296
pubmed: 31290802
pmcid: 6697191
Baguant A, Cole A, Vilotitch A, Quatre R, Schmerber S (2022) Difference in cochlear length between male and female patients. Cochlear Implants Int 23:326–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2022.2101534
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2022.2101534
pubmed: 35860840
Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, Strauss-Schier A, Lenarz T, Buechner A (2008) Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol 29:509–512. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318171972f
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318171972f
pubmed: 18520586
Hoppe U, Hocke T, Hast A, Iro H (2019) Maximum preimplantation monosyllabic score as predictor of cochlear implant outcome. HNO 67:62–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-019-0648-0
doi: 10.1007/s00106-019-0648-0
pubmed: 30944946
pmcid: 6565665
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O’Connell BP (2020) Frequency-to-place mismatch: characterizing variability and the influence on speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 41:1349–1361. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000864
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000864
pubmed: 32205726
pmcid: 8407755
Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ (2014) Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience 256:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.10.024
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.10.024
pubmed: 24157931
Fu QJ, Shannon RV (1999) Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1889–1900. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.426725
doi: 10.1121/1.426725
pubmed: 10089611
Li T, Fu QJ (2010) Effects of spectral shifting on speech perception in noise. Hear Res 270:81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2010.09.005
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.09.005
pubmed: 20868733
pmcid: 3001342
Jones GL, Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT (2013) Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 133:425–433. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4768881
doi: 10.1121/1.4768881
pubmed: 23297914
pmcid: 3548834
Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Miller CA, South H (2004) Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurootol 9:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078390
doi: 10.1159/000078390
pubmed: 15205548
Kileny PR, Zwolan TA, Telian SA, Boerst A (1998) Performance with the 20 + 2L lateral wall cochlear implant. Am J Otol 19:313–319
pubmed: 9596181