Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2017

01-12-2017 | Otology

Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim modiolar electrode (CI532): a preliminary experience

Authors: Domenico Cuda, Alessandra Murri

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 12/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

To combine the benefits of perimodiolar stimulation with minimal insertion trauma, a thin, pre-curved electrode (CI532) was recently developed by Cochlear Ltd. (Sidney). This array is held straight prior to insertion by an external polymer reloadable sheath that is removed after full electrode insertion. Sixty-seven patients suffering from severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 42.2 years; mean duration of the hearing loss 19.6 years; mean PTA thresholds at 250–2000 Hz 92.4 dB HL) were implanted with the CI532. Mean duration of surgery was 58.7 min. In 61 patients, a round window (RW) approach was used. In the remaining six cases, a cochleostomy was done because of RW ossification. Impedances and NRT for each electrode are reported. NRT ratio average value was 0.86 ± 0.12 predicting correct scala tympani electrode placement. Post-operative PTA threshold in the implanted ear was 102.9 dB HL. Finally, speech recognition level in quiet at 65 dB HL was 44.6%, after a short follow-up (mean 5.2 months). Our preliminary experience with the new CI532 shows good surgical, electrophysiological, and audiological outcomes. In particular, our results are promising regarding the possibility to achieve minimal insertion trauma and good residual hearing preservation with the use of a deep inserted close modiolar electrode.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Cohen LT, Treaba C, Briggs RJS (2001) The Contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design. Otol Neurotol 22:33–41CrossRefPubMed Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Cohen LT, Treaba C, Briggs RJS (2001) The Contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design. Otol Neurotol 22:33–41CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Frijns JHM, De Snoo SL, Ten Kate JH (1996) Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 95:33–48CrossRefPubMed Frijns JHM, De Snoo SL, Ten Kate JH (1996) Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 95:33–48CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Smullen JL, Polak M, Hodges AV, Payne SB, King JE 3rd, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ (2005) Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 115:977–982CrossRefPubMed Smullen JL, Polak M, Hodges AV, Payne SB, King JE 3rd, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ (2005) Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 115:977–982CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Gordin A, Papsin B, James A, Gordon K (2009) Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological responses in children. Otol Neurotol 30(7):908–915CrossRefPubMed Gordin A, Papsin B, James A, Gordon K (2009) Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological responses in children. Otol Neurotol 30(7):908–915CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference 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 119:1538–1547CrossRefPubMed 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 119:1538–1547CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, Service GJ, Tombers NM, Hughes-Borst BJ, Neff BA, Beatty CW (2011) Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 32:962–968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, Service GJ, Tombers NM, Hughes-Borst BJ, Neff BA, Beatty CW (2011) Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 32:962–968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Polak M, Driscoll CL, Roland P, Buchman CA (2013) Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 34:413–425CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Polak M, Driscoll CL, Roland P, Buchman CA (2013) Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 34:413–425CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M, Porowski M, Skarzynski PH, James CJ (2014) Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing. Ear Hear 35:33–43CrossRef Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M, Porowski M, Skarzynski PH, James CJ (2014) Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing. Ear Hear 35:33–43CrossRef
10.
go back to reference D’Elia A, Bartoli R, Giagnotti F, Quaranta N (2012) The role of hearing preservation on electrical thresholds and speech performances in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 33(3):343–347CrossRef D’Elia A, Bartoli R, Giagnotti F, Quaranta N (2012) The role of hearing preservation on electrical thresholds and speech performances in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 33(3):343–347CrossRef
11.
go back to reference O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, Francis DO, Noble JH, Labadie RF, Zuniga G, Dawant BM, Rivas A, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37(8):1016–1023CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, Francis DO, Noble JH, Labadie RF, Zuniga G, Dawant BM, Rivas A, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37(8):1016–1023CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
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(Suppl 6):S1-7PubMed 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(Suppl 6):S1-7PubMed
13.
go back to reference Roland JT (2005) A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and force evaluation: results with a new electrode design and insertion technique. Laryngoscope 115:1325–1339CrossRefPubMed Roland JT (2005) A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and force evaluation: results with a new electrode design and insertion technique. Laryngoscope 115:1325–1339CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Aschendorff A, Kromeier J, Klenzner T, Laszig R (2007) Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 28(2):75–79CrossRef Aschendorff A, Kromeier J, Klenzner T, Laszig R (2007) Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 28(2):75–79CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Fraysse B, Macías ÁR, Sterkers O, Burdo S, Ramsden R, Deguine O, Klenzner T, Lenarz T, Rodriguez MM, Von Wallenberg E, James C (2006) Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 27:624–663CrossRefPubMed Fraysse B, Macías ÁR, Sterkers O, Burdo S, Ramsden R, Deguine O, Klenzner T, Lenarz T, Rodriguez MM, Von Wallenberg E, James C (2006) Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 27:624–663CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Lazsig R, Aschendorff A, Lenarz T, Stöver T, Fraysse B, Marx M, Roland JT Jr, Roland PS, Wright CG, Gantz BJ, Patrick JF, Risi F (2011) Development and evaluation of the modiolar research array–multi-centre collaborative study in human temporal bones. Cochlear Implants Int 12(3):129–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Lazsig R, Aschendorff A, Lenarz T, Stöver T, Fraysse B, Marx M, Roland JT Jr, Roland PS, Wright CG, Gantz BJ, Patrick JF, Risi F (2011) Development and evaluation of the modiolar research array–multi-centre collaborative study in human temporal bones. Cochlear Implants Int 12(3):129–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Turrini M, Cutugno F, Maturi P, Prosser S, Leoni FA, Arslan E (1992) Bisyllabic words for speech audiometry: a new Italian material. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 13(1):63–77 Turrini M, Cutugno F, Maturi P, Prosser S, Leoni FA, Arslan E (1992) Bisyllabic words for speech audiometry: a new Italian material. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 13(1):63–77
18.
go back to reference Mittmann P, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of Cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 36(6):1010–1014CrossRefPubMed Mittmann P, Ernst A, Todt I (2015) Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of Cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 36(6):1010–1014CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Hellier W, Dahm M, Pyman B, Clark GM (2001) Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion. Cochlear Implants Int 2:135–149CrossRefPubMed Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Hellier W, Dahm M, Pyman B, Clark GM (2001) Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion. Cochlear Implants Int 2:135–149CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M et al (2012) Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurotol 17:82–91CrossRef Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M et al (2012) Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurotol 17:82–91CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ariyasu L, Galey FR, Hilsinger RJR, Byl FM (1989) Computer-generated three-dimensional reconstruction of the cochlea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 100(2):87CrossRefPubMed Ariyasu L, Galey FR, Hilsinger RJR, Byl FM (1989) Computer-generated three-dimensional reconstruction of the cochlea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 100(2):87CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA (2007) Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. JARO 8(2):220–223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA (2007) Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. JARO 8(2):220–223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Adunka O, Kiefer J (2006) Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolarygol Head Neck Surg 135:374–382CrossRef Adunka O, Kiefer J (2006) Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolarygol Head Neck Surg 135:374–382CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Boyd PJ (2011) Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes. Ear Hear 32(4):411–427CrossRefPubMed Boyd PJ (2011) Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes. Ear Hear 32(4):411–427CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
go back to reference Gordon K, Papsin B. From Nucleus 24 to 513. (2013) Changing Cochlear Implant design affects auditory response thresholds. Otol Neurotol 34:436–442 Gordon K, Papsin B. From Nucleus 24 to 513. (2013) Changing Cochlear Implant design affects auditory response thresholds. Otol Neurotol 34:436–442
27.
go back to reference Seidman MD, Vivek P, Dickinson W (2005) Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a perimodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 26.4:620–623CrossRef Seidman MD, Vivek P, Dickinson W (2005) Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a perimodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 26.4:620–623CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F, Simi Y, Carelsen B, Freling N, Tange RA (2009) Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational X-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. Otol Neurotol 30(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F, Simi Y, Carelsen B, Freling N, Tange RA (2009) Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational X-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. Otol Neurotol 30(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Copeland BJ, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA (2004) Prospective evaluation of intraoperative cochlear implant radiographs. Otol Neurotol 25(3):295–297CrossRefPubMed Copeland BJ, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA (2004) Prospective evaluation of intraoperative cochlear implant radiographs. Otol Neurotol 25(3):295–297CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Gnagi SH, Baker TR, Pollei TR, Barrs DM (2015) Analysis of Intraoperative Radiographic Electrode Placement During Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 36(6):1045–1047CrossRefPubMed Gnagi SH, Baker TR, Pollei TR, Barrs DM (2015) Analysis of Intraoperative Radiographic Electrode Placement During Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 36(6):1045–1047CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Ying YLM, Lin JW, Oghalai JS, Williamson RA (2013) Cochlear implant electrode misplacement: incidence, evaluation, and management. Laryngoscope 123(3):757–766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ying YLM, Lin JW, Oghalai JS, Williamson RA (2013) Cochlear implant electrode misplacement: incidence, evaluation, and management. Laryngoscope 123(3):757–766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, Service GJ, Tombers NM, Hughes-Borst BJ, Neff BA, Beatty CW (2011) Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 32(6):962–968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, Service GJ, Tombers NM, Hughes-Borst BJ, Neff BA, Beatty CW (2011) Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 32(6):962–968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Balkany TJ, Connell SS, Hodges AV, Payne SL, Telischi FF, Eshraghi AA, Angeli SI, Germani R, Messiah S, Arheart KL (2006) Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 27:1083–1088CrossRefPubMed Balkany TJ, Connell SS, Hodges AV, Payne SL, Telischi FF, Eshraghi AA, Angeli SI, Germani R, Messiah S, Arheart KL (2006) Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 27:1083–1088CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim modiolar electrode (CI532): a preliminary experience
Authors
Domenico Cuda
Alessandra Murri
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4774-6

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2017 Go to the issue