Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

Open Access 19-07-2023 | Cochlear Implant | Otology

Comparing linear and non-linear models to estimate the appropriate cochlear implant electrode array length—are current methods precise enough?

Authors: Nora M. Weiss, Tabita Breitsprecher, Martin Wozniak, David Bächinger, Christiane Völter, Robert Mlynski, Paul Van de Heyning, Vincent Van Rompaey, Stefan Dazert

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

In cochlear implantation with flexible lateral wall electrode arrays, a cochlear coverage (CC) range between 70% and 80% is considered ideal for optimal speech perception. To achieve this CC, the cochlear implant (CI) electrode array has to be chosen according to the individual cochlear duct length (CDL). Here, we mathematically analyzed the suitability of different flexible lateral wall electrode array lengths covering between 70% and 80% of the CDL.

Methods

In a retrospective cross-sectional study preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) from patients undergoing cochlear implantation was investigated. The CDL was estimated using an otosurgical planning software and the CI electrode array lengths covering 70–80% of the CDL was calculated using (i) linear and (ii) non-linear models.

Results

The analysis of 120 HRCT data sets showed significantly different model-dependent CDL. Significant differences between the CC of 70% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 2.5 mm, p < 0.001) and the CC of 80% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 1.5 mm, p < 0.001) were found. In up to 25% of the patients none of the existing flexible lateral wall electrode arrays fit into this range. In 59 cases (49,2%) the models did not agree on the suitable electrode arrays.

Conclusions

The CC varies depending on the underlying CDL approximation, which critically influences electrode array choice. Based on the literature, we hypothesize that the non-linear method systematically overestimates the CC and may lead to rather too short electrode array choices. Future studies need to assess the accuracy of the individual mathematical models.

Disorders, N.I.O.D.A.O.C. NIH Publication No. 00–4798. 2021

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(3):163–172. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077267CrossRefPubMed

Fu QJ, Shannon RV (1999) Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear 20(4):332–344. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199908000-00006CrossRefPubMed

Dhanasingh A, Jolly NC, Rajan G, van de Heyning P (2020) Literature review on the distribution of spiral ganglion cell bodies inside the human cochlear central modiolar trunk. J Int Adv Otol. 16(1):104–110. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2020.7510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gani M, Valentini G, Sigrist A, Kós M-I, Boëx C (2007) Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8(1):69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-006-0065-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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):920–928. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f492CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.005CrossRefPubMed

Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Brown KD, Pillsbury HC, Dedmon MM, O’Connell BP (2022) Insertion depth and cochlear implant speech recognition outcomes: a comparative study of 28- and 31.5-mm lateral wall arrays. Otol Neurotol 43(2):183–189. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Haynes DS et al (2017) Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope 127(10):2352–2357. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26467CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Mlynski R, Lüsebrink A, Oberhoffner T, Langner S, Weiss N (2020) Mapping cochlear duct length to electrically evoked compound action potentials in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002957CrossRefPubMed

11.

Timm ME, Majdani O, Weller T et al (2018) Patient specific selection of lateral wall cochlear implant electrodes based on anatomical indication ranges. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0206435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Dhanasingh AE, Rajan G, van de Heyning P (2020) Presence of the spiral ganglion cell bodies beyond the basal turn of the human cochlea. Cochlear Implants Int 21(3):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2019.1694226CrossRefPubMed

13.

Li H, Schart-Morén N, Rohani SA, Ladak HM, Rask-Andersen H, Agrawal S (2020) Synchrotron radiation-based reconstruction of the human spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 41(1):173–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000738CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lenarz T, Büchner A, Illg A (2022) Cochlear implantation: concept, results outcomes and quality of life. Laryngorhinootologie 101(S01):S36–S78. https://doi.org/10.1055/A-1731-9321CrossRefPubMed

15.

Breitsprecher T, Dhanasingh A, Schulze M et al (2021) CT imaging-based approaches to cochlear duct length estimation – a human temporal bone study. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08189-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Brant JA, Ruckenstein MJ (2016) Electrode selection for hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: A review of the evidence. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2(3):157–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WJORL.2016.08.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Schurzig D, Timm ME, Batsoulis C et al (2018) A novel method for clinical cochlear duct length estimation toward patient-specific cochlear implant selection. OTO Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2473974X18800238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Dhanasingh A (2019) Cochlear duct length along the outer wall vs organ of corti: Which one is relevant for the electrode array length selection and frequency mapping using Greenwood function? World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 5(2):117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2018.09.004CrossRefPubMed

19.

Nassiri AM, Yawn RJ, Holder JT et al (2020) Hearing preservation outcomes using a precurved electrode array inserted with an external sheath. Otol Neurotol 41(1):33–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Fan T, Xiang MY, Li Y et al (2022) Effect of electrode insertion angle on cochlear implantation outcomes in adult and children patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Oxid Med Cell Longev. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9914716CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Heutink F, Verbist BM, van der Woude W-J et al (2021) Factors influencing speech perception in adults with a cochlear implant. Ear Hear 42(4):949–960. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000988CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buchman CA et al (2021) Long-term influence of electrode array length on speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 131(4):892–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.28949CrossRefPubMed

23.

Helbig S, Adel Y, Leinung M, Stöver T, Baumann U, Weissgerber T (2018) Hearing preservation outcomes after cochlear implantation depending on the angle of insertion: indication for electric or electric-acoustic stimulation. Otol Neurotol 39(7):834–841. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001862CrossRefPubMed

24.

Buchner A, Illg A, Majdani O, Lenarz T (2017) Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0174900. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174900CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Hilly O, Smith L, Hwang E et al (2016) Depth of cochlear implant array within the cochlea and performance outcome. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125(11):886–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489416660111CrossRefPubMed

26.

Esquia Medina GN, Borel S, Nguyen Y et al (2013) Is electrode-modiolus distance a prognostic factor for hearing performances after cochlear implant surgery? Audiol Neurootol 18(6):406–413. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354115CrossRefPubMed

27.

Skinner MW, Ketten DR, Holden LK et al (2002) CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 3(3):332–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101620020013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB et al (2016) Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37(8):1016–1023. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Van de Heyning PH, Dazert S, Gavilan J et al (2022) Systematic literature review of hearing preservation rates in cochlear implantation associated with medium- and longer-length flexible lateral wall electrode arrays. Front Surg. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSURG.2022.893839CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Anschuetz L, Weder S, Mantokoudis G, Kompis M, Caversaccio M, Wimmer W (2018) Cochlear implant insertion depth prediction: a temporal bone accuracy study. Otol Neurotol 39(10):e996–e1001. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002034CrossRefPubMed

31.

Rathgeb C, Demattè M, Yacoub A et al (2019) Clinical applicability of a preoperative angular insertion depth prediction method for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 40(8):1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002304CrossRefPubMed

32.

Avallone E, Lenarz T, Timm ME (2021) On the accuracy of clinical insertion angle predictions with a surgical planning platform for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 42(9):e1242–e1249. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003272CrossRefPubMed

33.

Mertens G, Van Rompaey V, Van de Heyning P, Gorris E, Topsakal V (2020) Prediction of the cochlear implant electrode insertion depth: clinical applicability of two analytical cochlear models. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-020-58648-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Comparing linear and non-linear models to estimate the appropriate cochlear implant electrode array length—are current methods precise enough?
Authors: Nora M. Weiss
Tabita Breitsprecher
Martin Wozniak
David Bächinger
Christiane Völter
Robert Mlynski
Paul Van de Heyning
Vincent Van Rompaey
Stefan Dazert
Publication date: 19-07-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Cochlear Implant
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08064-z

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Comparing linear and non-linear models to estimate the appropriate cochlear implant electrode array length—are current methods precise enough?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Trans-mastoid plugging of superior semicircular canal dehiscence: long-term follow-up

Modified procedure for reconstructing the inferomedial orbital wall: silicone sheet implantation without surgical removal

Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Impact of dysplasia at resection margin on oncologic outcome after curative resection of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: significance of high-grade dysplastic resection margin

The efficacy of perioperative antibiotic therapy in adenotonsillectomy children

Effectiveness and rapidity on olfatory fuction recovery in CRS patients treated with Dupilumab: a real life prospective controlled study