Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 1/2020

01-01-2020 | Cochlear Implant | Otology

Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes

Authors: Octavio Garaycochea, Raquel Manrique-Huarte, Carlos Lazaro, Alicia Huarte, Carlos Prieto, Marta Alvarez de Linera - Alperi, Manuel Manrique

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the surgical and audiological outcomes with two perimodiolar electrode arrays (Nucleus 512-Contour Advance® y Nucleus 532-Slim Perimodiolar®) and a straight electrode array (Nucleus 422/522).

Methods

Patients were retrospectively selected from our cochlear implant program database. Only patients with a history of bilateral, sensorineural postlingually profound hearing loss who underwent cochlear implant surgery with either a N512, a N532 or a N422 were included. Throughout a year of follow-up, pure tone audiometry (PTA), speech perception, Impedances and T–C Thresholds levels were analyzed. Surgical data were also analyzed.

Results

66 patients were included (19-CI532, 20-CI512 and 27-CI422). The most common type of cochlea access with the N532, N512 and N422 was through an extended round window, a promontorial cochleostomy and a pure round window, respectively. No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition. No significant differences were seen in the levels of hearing preservation at frequencies of 250 and 500. The average values of the impedances were significantly higher in the CI group N532 and N422 than in the N512. The mean values of the T and C levels were significantly lower in the CI groups N532 and N422 compared with the N512.

Conclusions

No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition; however, a faster acquisition of auditory results were observed in the group of patients treated with the CI N532. The type of electrode array influences in the type of cochleostomy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103CrossRefPubMed Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK et al (2008) Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 29(7):920–928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK et al (2008) Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 29(7):920–928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference House WF, Urban J (1973) Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlear in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 82(4):504–517CrossRefPubMed House WF, Urban J (1973) Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlear in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 82(4):504–517CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kenney DW (1987) Multichannel intracochlear electrodes: mechanism of insertion trauma. Laryngoscope 97:42–49 Kenney DW (1987) Multichannel intracochlear electrodes: mechanism of insertion trauma. Laryngoscope 97:42–49
5.
go back to reference Hughes ML, Abbas PJ (2006) Electrophysiological channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoustic Soc Am 119(3):1538–1547CrossRef Hughes ML, Abbas PJ (2006) Electrophysiological channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoustic Soc Am 119(3):1538–1547CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Pyman BC et al (2000) Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various peri-modiolar electrode arrays. Am J Otol 21:205–211CrossRefPubMed Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Pyman BC et al (2000) Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various peri-modiolar electrode arrays. Am J Otol 21:205–211CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Friedland D, Runge-Samuelson C (2009) Soft cochlear implantation: rationale for the surgical approach. Trends Amplification 13:124–138CrossRef Friedland D, Runge-Samuelson C (2009) Soft cochlear implantation: rationale for the surgical approach. Trends Amplification 13:124–138CrossRef
8.
go back to reference de Abajo J, Manrique-Huarte R, Sanhueza I, Alvarez-Gómez L, Zulueta-Santos C, Calavia D, Ramírez F, Manrique M (2017) Effects of implantation and reimplantation of cochlear implant electrodes in an in vivo animal experimental model (Macaca fascicularis). Ear Hear 38(1):e57–e68CrossRefPubMed de Abajo J, Manrique-Huarte R, Sanhueza I, Alvarez-Gómez L, Zulueta-Santos C, Calavia D, Ramírez F, Manrique M (2017) Effects of implantation and reimplantation of cochlear implant electrodes in an in vivo animal experimental model (Macaca fascicularis). Ear Hear 38(1):e57–e68CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Huarte A, Molina M, Manrique M, Olleta I, García-Tapia R (1996) Protocolo para la valoración de la audición y el lenguaje, en lengua española, en un programa de implantes cocleares. Acta Otorrinolaringológica española 47(supl 1) Huarte A, Molina M, Manrique M, Olleta I, García-Tapia R (1996) Protocolo para la valoración de la audición y el lenguaje, en lengua española, en un programa de implantes cocleares. Acta Otorrinolaringológica española 47(supl 1)
11.
go back to reference Wanna GB, O'Connell BP, Francis DO et al (2017) Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes. Laryngoscope 128:482–489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wanna GB, O'Connell BP, Francis DO et al (2017) Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes. Laryngoscope 128:482–489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Roland PS, Wright CG, Isaacson B (2007) Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 117(8):1397–1402 (PubMed: 17585282) CrossRefPubMed Roland PS, Wright CG, Isaacson B (2007) Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 117(8):1397–1402 (PubMed: 17585282) CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wang J, Sun J, Sun J, Chen J (2017) Variations in electrode impedance during and after cochlear implantation: round window versus extended round window insertions. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 102:44–48CrossRefPubMed Wang J, Sun J, Sun J, Chen J (2017) Variations in electrode impedance during and after cochlear implantation: round window versus extended round window insertions. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 102:44–48CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, Gifford RH, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS, Dawant BM, Labadie RF (2014) Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124(S6):S1–S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, Gifford RH, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS, Dawant BM, Labadie RF (2014) Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124(S6):S1–S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Cervera-Paz FJ, Linthicum FH, Manrique MS, Pérez N (2004) Morphometry of the human cochlear wall and implications for cochlear surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 124:1124–1130CrossRefPubMed Cervera-Paz FJ, Linthicum FH, Manrique MS, Pérez N (2004) Morphometry of the human cochlear wall and implications for cochlear surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 124:1124–1130CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Proctor B, Bollobas B, Niparko JK (1986) Anatomy of the round window niche. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:444–446CrossRefPubMed Proctor B, Bollobas B, Niparko JK (1986) Anatomy of the round window niche. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:444–446CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Giord RH, Rivas A, Haynes DS, Noble JH, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and audiologic performance after cochlear implantation: a comparative study between nucleus CI422 and CI512 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 37:1035–1045 O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Giord RH, Rivas A, Haynes DS, Noble JH, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and audiologic performance after cochlear implantation: a comparative study between nucleus CI422 and CI512 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 37:1035–1045
20.
21.
go back to reference Newbold C, Mergen S, Richardson R, Seligman P, Millard R, Cowan R, Shepherd R (2014) Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int 15(4):191–199CrossRefPubMed Newbold C, Mergen S, Richardson R, Seligman P, Millard R, Cowan R, Shepherd R (2014) Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int 15(4):191–199CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R (2017) Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 37(4):312–319PubMedPubMedCentral Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R (2017) Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 37(4):312–319PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Jia H, Venail F, Piron JP, Batrel C, Pelliccia P, Artieres F, Uziel A, Mondain M (2011) Effect of surgical technique on electrode impedance after cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 120(8):529–534CrossRefPubMed Jia H, Venail F, Piron JP, Batrel C, Pelliccia P, Artieres F, Uziel A, Mondain M (2011) Effect of surgical technique on electrode impedance after cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 120(8):529–534CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Tabibi S, Kegel A, Lai WK, Bruce IC, Dillier N (2019) Measuring temporal response properties of auditory nerve fibers in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res 380:187–196CrossRefPubMed Tabibi S, Kegel A, Lai WK, Bruce IC, Dillier N (2019) Measuring temporal response properties of auditory nerve fibers in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res 380:187–196CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Seidman MD, Vivek O, Dickinson W (2005) Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a periomodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 26(4):620–623CrossRefPubMed Seidman MD, Vivek O, Dickinson W (2005) Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a periomodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 26(4):620–623CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Mittmann P, Rademacher G, Mutze S, Hassepass F, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Evaluation of the relationship between the NRT-ratio, cochlear anatomy, and insertions depth of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Biomed Res Int 2015:706253CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mittmann P, Rademacher G, Mutze S, Hassepass F, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Evaluation of the relationship between the NRT-ratio, cochlear anatomy, and insertions depth of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Biomed Res Int 2015:706253CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Seyle K, Brown CJ (2002) Speech perception based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 23:72S–79SCrossRefPubMed Seyle K, Brown CJ (2002) Speech perception based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 23:72S–79SCrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Cervera-Paz FJ, Martinez J, Huarte A, Manrique M (2004) Behavioural vs NRT generated auditory maps in children under 3 years of age. Poster session presented at: 7th European Symposium Paediatric Cochlear implantation, 2004 May 2–5, Geneva, Switzerland Cervera-Paz FJ, Martinez J, Huarte A, Manrique M (2004) Behavioural vs NRT generated auditory maps in children under 3 years of age. Poster session presented at: 7th European Symposium Paediatric Cochlear implantation, 2004 May 2–5, Geneva, Switzerland
33.
go back to reference Gibson P, Boyd P (2016) Optimal electrode design: straight versus perimodiolar. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(S1):S63–S65CrossRefPubMed Gibson P, Boyd P (2016) Optimal electrode design: straight versus perimodiolar. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(S1):S63–S65CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes
Authors
Octavio Garaycochea
Raquel Manrique-Huarte
Carlos Lazaro
Alicia Huarte
Carlos Prieto
Marta Alvarez de Linera - Alperi
Manuel Manrique
Publication date
01-01-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05680-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 1/2020 Go to the issue