Electrode-Modiolus Distance Affects Speech Perception for Lateral Wall Electrodes.
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 Dec 2023
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
8
11
2023
entrez:
8
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The goal of this study was to use cone-beam computed tomography to locate the electrode-modiolus distance (EMD) and correlate this with speech perception in cochlear implant (CI) recipients of the 31.5-mm lateral wall (LW) electrode arrays. Retrospective review. Forty-five child CI recipients with prelingual profound sensorineural hearing loss of inserted 31.5-mm LW arrays listening with a CI-alone device. Stepwise forward multiple linear regression was performed to control and reduce the variability in implant performance to determine whether EMD affects speech perception. Electrode location (angular insertion depth [AID], EMD), together with the electrode impedance (EI), surgical approach, sex, CI age, and preimplant hearing aid usage were estimated as independent variables. The dependent variables were the Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS) and parents' evaluation of children's aural/oral performance (PEACH) assessed with the CI alone at 12 months postactivation. EMD and CI age were predictive variables for PEACH/MUSS. A negative correlation was found between AID and EMD (r = -0.56, p < 0.01), whereas EMD had a moderately positive correlation with EI (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). The best "location-related" predictor of postoperative speech perception was EMD with a 31.5-mm array among CI-alone users.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37939358
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004019
pii: 00129492-202312000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e702-e709Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Références
Clark GM, Patrick JF, Bailey Q. A cochlear implant round window electrode array. J Laryngol Otol 1979;93:107–9.
Briggs RJS, Tykocinski M, Stidham K, Roberson JB. Cochleostomy site: implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:870–6.
Davis T, Zhang D, Gifford R, et al. Relationship between electrode-to-modiolus distance and current levels for adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:31–7.
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;37:1016–23.
Esquia Medina GN, Borel S, Nguyen Y, et al. Is electrode–modiolus distance a prognostic factor for hearing performances after cochlear implant surgery? Audiol Neurootol 2013;18:406–13.
Zou J, Lähelmä J, Koivisto J, et al. Imaging cochlear implantation with round window insertion in human temporal bones and cochlear morphological variation using high-resolution cone beam CT. Acta Otolaryngol 2015;135:466–72.
Sismono F, Leblans M, Mancini L, et al. 3D-localisation of cochlear implant electrode contacts in relation to anatomical structures from in vivo cone-beam computed tomography. Hear Res 2022;426:108537.
Giardina CK, Krause ES, Koka K, Fitzpatrick DC. Impedance measures during in vitro cochlear implantation predict array positioning. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2018;65:327–35.
Jiam NT, Jiradejvong P, Pearl MS, Limb CJ. The effect of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on cochlear implant electrode position: a flat-panel computed tomography study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;142:873–80.
Klabbers TM, Heutink F, Huinck WJ, et al. Intracochlear electrode array position and cochlear implant outcomes using the nucleus slim modiolar electrode and the extended round window approach: a follow-up study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:4735–43.
Verbist BM, Skinner MW, Cohen LT, et al. Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:722–30.
Boyer E, Karkas A, Attye A, et al. Scalar localization by cone-beam computed tomography of cochlear implant carriers: a comparative study between straight and periomodiolar precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:422–9.
Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:220–35.
Umat C, Siti Hufaidah K, Azlizawati AR. Auditory functionality and early use of speech in a group of pediatric cochlear implant users. Med J Malaysia 2010;65:7–13.
Würfel W, Lanfermann H, Lenarz T, Majdani O. Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res 2014;316:65–72.
Fan X, Xia M, Wang Z, et al. Comparison of electrode position between round window and cochleostomy inserting approaches among young children: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Acta Otolaryngol 2018;138:815–21.
Jwair S, Prins A, Wegner I, et al. Scalar translocation comparison between lateral wall and perimodiolar cochlear implant arrays—a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2021;131:1358–68.
Wanna GB, Noble JH, Gifford RH, et al. Impact of intrascalar electrode location, electrode type, and angular insertion depth on residual hearing in cochlear implant patients: preliminary results. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1343–8.
Hochmair I, Arnold W, Nopp P, et al. Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:612–7.
O'Connell BP, Hunter JB, Haynes DS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2352–7.
Helmstaedter V, Buechner A, Stolle S, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with meningitis related deafness: the influence of electrode impedance and implant charge on auditory performance—a case control study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2018;113:102–9.
Brkic FF, Umihanic S, Harcinovic A, Piric L, Brkic F. High electrode impedance values in pediatric cochlear implant recipients may imply insufficient auditory and language skills development. J Clin Med 2020;9.
Prenzler NK, Weller T, Steffens M, et al. Impedance values do not correlate with speech understanding in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2020;41:e1029–34.
Ramos Macias A, Perez Zaballos MT, Ramos de Miguel A, Cervera Paz J. Importance of perimodiolar electrode position for psychoacoustic discrimination in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:e429–37.
Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, et al. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 2002;23:28S–40S.
Canfarotta MW, O'Connell BP, Giardina CK, et al. Relationship between electrocochleography, angular insertion depth, and cochlear implant speech perception outcomes. Ear Hear 2021;42:941–8.
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Brown KD, et al. Insertion depth and cochlear implant speech recognition outcomes: a comparative study of 28- and 31.5-mm lateral wall arrays. Otol Neurotol 2022;43:183–9.
Boyd PJ. Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes. Ear Hear 2011;32:411–27.
Hochmair I, Hochmair E, Nopp P, Waller M, Jolly C. Deep electrode insertion and sound coding in cochlear implants. Hear Res 2015;322:14–23.
O'Connell BP, Hunter JB, Wanna GB. The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016;1:169–74.
Lee SY, Kim YS, Jo HD, et al. Effects of in vivo repositioning of slim modiolar electrodes on electrical thresholds and speech perception. Sci Rep 2021;11:15135.