Curvature analysis of CI electrode arrays: a novel approach to categorize perimodiolar positions without anatomical landmarks.
Angular depth of insertion
Cochlear implant
Curvature
Over-insertion
Under-insertion
aDOI
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:
30 Aug 2024
30 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
24
06
2024
accepted:
12
08
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Perimodiolar electrode arrays may be positioned regular, over-inserted or under-inserted into the cochlea depending on the cochlear size and shape. The study aimed to examine whether there are differences between these groups in the local curvature along the intracochlear array. Individual curvature variables were developed to categorize the groups and the relationship between the curvature and the angular insertion depth at the electrode tip was analyzed. The curvature along the intracochlear array was measured in the CBCT image of 85 perimodiolar electrodes of a single type. The mean curvature and the ratio of the mean curvature at contacts E14-16 to the mean curvature at E7-8 (bowing ratio) were calculated across the array, and its true positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) were calculated to establish optimal threshold values to categorize the groups. 68.2% of the cases were categorized as regular positioned, 22.4% had an over-insertion and 9.4% had an under-insertion. The mean curvature was significantly weaker with under-insertion (< 342°) than with normal insertion depth (≥ 342°). With an over-insertion, the bowing ratio was < 1 and otherwise > 1. Both the mean curvature and bowing ratio were found to have an optimal threshold value with high TPR (= 1.00) and low FPR (≤ 0.06) for categorizing under-insertion and over-insertion, respectively. Curvature analysis is a useful tool to assess if a perimodiolar electrode array has been inserted deep enough into the cochlea. Independent of critical anatomical landmarks, over-inserted arrays and under-inserted arrays could be well categorized by using individual curvature variables. The results need to be validated using additional data sets.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39214908
doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08917-1
pii: 10.1007/s00405-024-08917-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Clark GM et al (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
Shepherd RK, Hatsushika S, Clark GM (1993) Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: The effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res 66:108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(93)90265-3
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(93)90265-3
pubmed: 8473242
Van Wermeskerken GKA, Van Olphen AF, Graamans K (2009) Imaging of electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 266:1527–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-009-0939-2
doi: 10.1007/s00405-009-0939-2
Mewes A, Brademann G, Hey M (2020) Comparison of perimodiolar electrodes: imaging and electrophysiological outcomes. Otol Neurotol 41:e934–e944. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002790
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002790
pubmed: 32658111
Liebscher T, Mewes A, Hoppe U et al (2021) Electrode translocations in perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes: audiological and electrophysiological outcome. Z Med Phys 31:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2020.05.004
doi: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2020.05.004
pubmed: 32620321
Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, Cowan RSC (2003) Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res 179:72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00096-0
doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00096-0
pubmed: 12742240
Hughes ML, Abbas PJ (2006) Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am 119:1538–1547. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2164969
doi: 10.1121/1.2164969
pubmed: 16583899
Runge-Samuelson C, Firszt JB, Gaggl W, Wackym PA (2009) Electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses in adults and children: effects of lateral to medial placement of the nucleus 24 contour electrode array. Otol Neurotol 30:464–470. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0B013E31819FE7EA
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0B013E31819FE7EA
pubmed: 19300297
Long CJ, Holden TA, McClelland GH et al (2014) Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding. JARO J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0437-5
doi: 10.1007/s10162-013-0437-5
pubmed: 24477546
Poley M, Overmyer E, Craun P et al (2015) Does pediatric cochlear implant insertion technique affect intraoperative neural response telemetry thresholds? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79:1404–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.05.038
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.05.038
pubmed: 26166451
Aschendorff A, Briggs R, Brademann G et al (2017) Clinical investigation of the nucleus slim modiolar electrode. Audiol Neurootol 22:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480345
doi: 10.1159/000480345
pubmed: 29059669
Wang J, Dawant BM, Labadie RF, Noble JH (2017) Retrospective evaluation of a technique for patient-customized placement of pre-curved cochlear implant electrode arrays. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157:107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817697298
doi: 10.1177/0194599817697298
pubmed: 28374623
pmcid: 5584996
Labadie RF, Noble JH (2018) Preliminary results with image-guided cochlear implant insertion techniques. Otol Neurotol 39:922–928. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001850
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001850
pubmed: 29995013
pmcid: 6344356
James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al (2005) Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 125:481–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480510026197
doi: 10.1080/00016480510026197
pubmed: 16092537
Escudé B, James C, Deguine O et al (2006) The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 11(Suppl 1):27–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000095611
doi: 10.1159/000095611
pubmed: 17063008
Banalagay RA, Labadie RF, Chakravorti S, Noble JH (2020) Insertion depth for optimized positioning of precurved cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 41:1066–1071. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002726
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002726
pubmed: 32569133
pmcid: 8054969
Chakravorti S, Noble JH, Gifford RH et al (2019) Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol 40:617–624. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002204
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002204
pubmed: 31083083
pmcid: 6788798
Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB et al (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
Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A et al (2002) Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 23:28S-40S. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200202001-00004
doi: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00004
pubmed: 11883764
Esquia Medina GN, Borel S, Nguyen Y et al (2015) Is electrode-modiolus distance a prognostic factor for hearing performances after cochlear implant surgery? Audiol Neurootol 18:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354115
doi: 10.1159/000354115
Degen CV, Büchner A, Kludt E, Lenarz T (2020) Effect of electrode to modiolus distance on electrophysiological and psychophysical parameters in CI patients with perimodiolar and lateral electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 41:e1091–e1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002751
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002751
pubmed: 32925843
Mewes A, Bennett C, Dambon J et al (2023) Evaluation of CI electrode position from imaging: comparison of an automated technique with the established manual method. BMC Med Imag 23:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-01102-6
doi: 10.1186/s12880-023-01102-6
Verbist BM, Skinner MW, Cohen LT et al (2010) Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 31:722–730. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d279e0
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d279e0
pubmed: 20147866
pmcid: 2945386
Svrakic M, Friedmann DR, Berman PM et al (2015) Measurement of cochlear implant electrode position from intraoperative post-insertion skull radiographs: a validation Study. Otol Neurotol 36:1486–1491. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000852
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000852
pubmed: 26375970
pmcid: 4574306
Wimmer W, Vandersteen C, Guevara N et al (2019) Robust cochlear modiolar axis detection in CT. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 22:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32254-0_1
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32254-0_1
pubmed: 32002521
pmcid: 6992420
Mewes A, Burg S, Brademann G et al (2022) Quality-assured training in the evaluation of cochlear implant electrode position: a prospective experimental study. BMC Med Educ 22:386. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03464-x
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03464-x
pubmed: 35596162
pmcid: 9121556
Cohen LT, Xu J, Xu SA, Clark GM (1996) Improved and simplified methods for specifying positions of the electrode bands of a cochlear implant array. Am J Otol 17:859–865
pubmed: 8915414
Xu J, Xu SA, Cohen LT, Clark GM (2000) Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 21:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0709(00)80112-x
doi: 10.1016/s0196-0709(00)80112-x
pubmed: 10651435
Mary H, Brouhard GJ (2019) Kappa (κ): Analysis of curvature in biological image data using B-splines. bioRxiv 852772. https://doi.org/10.1101/852772
Plass M, Stone M (1983) Curve-fitting with piecewise parametric cubics. Proc 10th Annu Conf Comput Graph Interact Tech SIGGRAPH 1983 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1145/800059.801153
Mittmann P, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 36:1010–1014. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000736
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000736
pubmed: 25730445
Mittmann P, Todt I, Ernst A et al (2016) Electrophysiological detection of scalar changing perimodiolar cochlear electrode arrays: a long term follow-up study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 273:4251–4256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4175-2
doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4175-2
Perenyi A, Toth F, Dimak B et al (2019) Electrophysiological measurements with electrode types of different perimodiolar properties and the same cochlear implant electronics - a retrospective comparison study. J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg 48:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-019-0361-8
doi: 10.1186/s40463-019-0361-8
Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE (2013) Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 201:611–617. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10375
doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10375
Busby LP, Courtier JL, Glastonbury CM (2018) Bias in radiology: the how and why of misses and misinterpretations. Radiographics 38:236–247. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170107
doi: 10.1148/rg.2018170107
pubmed: 29194009
Braun LT, Zwaan L, Kiesewetter J et al (2017) Diagnostic errors by medical students: results of a prospective qualitative study. BMC Med Educ 17:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12909-017-1044-7
doi: 10.1186/S12909-017-1044-7
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York
McCreadie G, Oliver TB (2009) Eight CT lessons that we learned the hard way: an analysis of current patterns of radiological error and discrepancy with particular emphasis on CT. Clin Radiol 64:491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.12.010
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.12.010
pubmed: 19348844
Noble JH, Labadie RF, Gifford RH, Dawant BM (2013) Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21:820–829. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2253333
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2253333
pubmed: 23529109
pmcid: 3769452
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E et al (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
Kurz A, Müller-Graff FT, Hagen R, Rak K (2022) One click is not enough: anatomy-based fitting in experienced cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 43:1176–1180. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003731
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003731
pubmed: 36351223
Kurz A, Herrmann D, Hagen R, Rak K (2023) Using anatomy-based fitting to reduce frequency-to-place mismatch in experienced bilateral cochlear implant users: a promising concept. J Pers Med 13:1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/JPM13071109
doi: 10.3390/JPM13071109
pubmed: 37511722
pmcid: 10381201
Lassaletta L, Calvino M, Sánchez-Cuadrado I, Gavilán J (2023) Does it make any sense to fit cochlear implants according to the anatomy-based fitting? Our experience with the first series of patients. Front Audiol Otol 1:1298538. https://doi.org/10.3389/FAUOT.2023.1298538
doi: 10.3389/FAUOT.2023.1298538