An analysis of the spread of electric field within the cochlea for different devices including custom-made electrodes for subtotal cochleoectomy.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
06
12
2022
accepted:
01
06
2023
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
8
9
2023
entrez:
8
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cochlear implants (CIs) can restore hearing not only in patients with profound hearing loss and deafness, but also in patients following tumour removal of intra-cochlear schwannomas. In such cases, design and placement differ from conventional electrode insertion, in which the cochlea remains filled with fluid. Despite these technical and surgical differences, previous studies have tended to show positive results in speech perception in tumour patients. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the ability to predict speech recognition outcomes using individual electric field spreads and to investigate worldwide unique tumour cases. In a retrospective analysis in a university tertiary center electric field spreads were compared between two groups of electrode designs implanted between 2009 and 2020 i.e., between lateral wall electrodes and custom-made perimodiolar electrode carriers from the same company. The voltage gradients were analysed and grouped with speech recognition results. Differences in electrical field spreads were found between lateral wall electrodes and the custom-made perimodiolar electrodes, whereas a significant influence of electric fields on scores in speech recognition cannot be demonstrated. Prediction of speech recognition outcome based on electric field propagation results seems not feasible. Significant differences in field spread between electrode arrays can be clearly demonstrated. This observation and its relevance to hearing treatment and speech recognition should therefore be further investigated in upcoming studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37682960
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287216
pii: PONE-D-22-33452
pmc: PMC10490913
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0287216Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Wagner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ear Hear. 2020 Sep/Oct;41(5):1196-1207
pubmed: 31923041
Hear Res. 2015 Sep;327:126-35
pubmed: 26074305
Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):342-60
pubmed: 23348845
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63
pubmed: 11519582
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 13;10(24):
pubmed: 34945115
Hear Res. 2016 Mar;333:98-107
pubmed: 26778546
Ear Hear. 2008 Apr;29(2):250-60
pubmed: 18595189
Trends Amplif. 2007 Sep;11(3):143-59
pubmed: 17709572
Cochlear Implants Int. 2014 Jul;15(4):191-9
pubmed: 23998484
Network. 2016;27(2-3):67-106
pubmed: 27136100
Hear Res. 2014 Sep;315:10-24
pubmed: 24975087
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Jun;41(5):694-703
pubmed: 31985710
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Feb;278(2):353-362
pubmed: 32504199
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Aug;41(7):e891
pubmed: 32658406
Otol Neurotol. 2021 Jan;42(1):59-67
pubmed: 32941302
Hear Res. 2022 Oct;424:108591
pubmed: 35914395
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011 May;8(3):389-401
pubmed: 21542710
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2012;15(Pt 2):421-8
pubmed: 23286076
J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 31;10(17):
pubmed: 34501410
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 17;10(2):
pubmed: 33477270
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Jun;278(6):1815-1820
pubmed: 32767167
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Dec;41(10):e1297-e1303
pubmed: 33492805
Hear Res. 2013 Dec;306:93-103
pubmed: 24095669
Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(6):400-11
pubmed: 25402603