Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Otology

Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays

Authors: Ángel Ramos de Miguel, Andrea A. Argudo, Silvia A. Borkoski Barreiro, Juan Carlos Falcón González, Angel Ramos Macías

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of electrode discrimination based on electrode to modiolus distance in different cochlear implant models, using image information to estimate the outcomes after an implantation on electrode discrimination

Methods

A descriptive prospective randomized study performed during 16 months. A psychoacoustic platform was used to evaluate patients’ electrode discrimination capabilities of patients. For the acquisition of the images, a cone beam computed tomography was used to assess postcochlear implantation of electrodes’ position. We considered two other new measurements: the intracochlear position index, which indicates how far is the electrode from the modiolar wall, and the homogeneity factor (HF), which provides us with information about the distance between the electrodes and the modiolus

Results

21 postlingually deaf adults showing different CI models [CI522 (n = 7), CI512 (n = 7), and CI532 (n = 7)] that corresponded to the lateral and perimodiolar array electrodes. The average success rate of the CI522 group was 47%, of the CI512 group was 48%, and of the CI532 group was 77%. There is statistically significant difference between groups CI532–CI522 (p = 0.0033) and CI532–CI512 (p = 0.0027)

Conclusion

The Nucleus CI532 offers a better perimodiolar placement. HF and IPI measurements provide information about the electrodes location inside the cochlea, being related to electrode discrimination.

Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, Shapiro W, Knight M, Stecker M, Laszig R (2002) Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 23(1):28S-40SPubMed

McKay CM, O’Brien A, James CJ (1999) Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hear Res 136(1–2):159–164CrossRefPubMed

Shepherd RK, Hatsushika S, Clark GM (1993) Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res 66(1):108–120CrossRefPubMed

Pfingst BE, Holloway LA, Zwolan TA, Collins LM (1993) Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants. Hear Res 66(1):108–120CrossRef

DeVries L, Scheperle R, Bierer JA (2016) Assessing the electrode-neuron interface with the electrically evoked compound action potential, electrode position, and behavioral thresholds. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17(3):237–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fu QJ, Nogaki G (2005) Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6(1):19–27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Finley CC, Skinner MW (2008) Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 29(7):920CrossRef

Boëx C, de BalthasarC, Kós, Pelizzone MI, M (2003) Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 114(4 Pt 1):2049–2057CrossRefPubMed

Bilger RC, Black FO, Hopkinson NT (1977) Research plan for evaluating subjects presently fitted with implanted auditory prostheses. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 86(3 Pt 2 Suppl 38):21–24CrossRef

10.

Rebscher SJ, Hetherington A, Bonham B, Wardrop P, Whinney D. Leake PA (2008) Considerations for the design of future cochlear implant electrode arrays: electrode array stiffness, size and depth of insertion. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(5):731–747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Staller SJ, Beiter AL, Brimacombe JA, Mecklenburg DJ, Arndt P (1991) Pediatric performance with the nucleus 22-channel cochlearimplantsystem. Am J Otol 12(Suppl):126–136PubMed

12.

Ebrahimi-Madiseh A, Eikelboom RH, Jayakody DM, Atlas MD (2016) Speech perception scores in cochlear implant recipients: an analysis of ceiling effects in the CUNY sentence test (Quiet) in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. Cochlear Implants Int 17(2):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.1114220 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Pyman BC, RolandJr T, Treaba C, Palamara J, Cohen NL (2000) Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays. Am J Otol 21(2):205–511CrossRefPubMed

14.

Macias AR, Morera C, Manrique M, Garcia-Ibanez L, Perez D, Caballe L, Estrada E (2007) Perimodiolar electrode position: effects on thresholds, comfort levels, impedance measurements, and neural response telemetry. Mediterr J Otol 3:140–149

15.

Cushing SL, Daly MJ, Treaba CG, Chan H, Irish JC, Blaser S, Papsin BC (2012) High-resolution cone-beam computed tomography: a potential tool to improve atraumatic electrode design and position.Acta Otolaryngol 132(4):361–368. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2011.644805

16.

Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Iso-Mustajärvi M, Matikka H, Risi F, Sipari S, Koski T, Willberg T, Dietz A (2017) A new slim modiolar electrode array for cochlear implantation: a radiological and histological study. Otol Neurotol 38(9):e327–e334CrossRefPubMed

18.

Xu J, Xu SA, Cohen LT, Clark GM (2000) Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 21(1):49–56CrossRefPubMed

19.

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(6):859–865PubMed

20.

Ketten DR, Skinner MW, Wang G, Vannier MW, Gates GA, Neely JG (1998) In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 175:1–16

21.

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(5):820–829. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2253333 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Henry BA, McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Clark GM (2000) The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 108(3):1269–1280CrossRefPubMed

23.

Vickers D, Degun A, Canas A, Stainsby T, Vanpoucke F (2016) Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes based on pitch information for users of the ACE strategy. Adv Exp Med Biol 894:115–123CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cosentino S, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Parkinson W, Bierer JA (2016) Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17(4):371–382CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Zaballos MP, de Miguel AR, Killian M, Macías AR (2016) A Psychophysics experimental software to evaluateelectrical pitch discrimination in Nucleuscochlearimplantedpatients. J Phys Conf Ser 689(1):012030 (IOP Publishing)CrossRef

26.

Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH (1997) Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 102(6):3673–3685CrossRefPubMed

27.

Marx M, Risi F, Escudé B, Durmo I, James C, Lauwers F, Fraysse B (2014) Reliability of cone beam computed tomography in scalar localization of the electrode array: a radio histological study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 71(4):673–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2448-6 CrossRef

28.

Saeed SR, Selvadurai D, Beale T, Biggs N, Murray B, Gibson P, Boyd P (2014) The use of cone-beam computed tomography to determine cochlear implant electrode position in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 35(8):1338–1344. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000295 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lathuillière M, Merklen F, Piron JP, Sicard M, Villemus F, de Champfleur NM, Mondain M (2017) Cone-beam computed tomography in children with cochlear implants: the effect of electrode array position on ECAP. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 92:27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.10.033 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Dahmani-Causse M, Marx M, Deguine O, Fraysse B, Lepage B, Escudé B (2011) Morphologic examination of the temporal bone by cone beam computed tomography: comparison with multislice helical computed tomography. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128(5):230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2011.02.016 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Ruivo J, Mermuys K, Bacher K, Kuhweide R, Offeciers E, Casselman JW (2009) Cone beam computed tomography, a low-dose imaging technique in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 30(3):299–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31819679f9.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Hodez C, Griffaton-Taillandier C, Bensimon I (2011) Cone-beam imaging: applications in ENT. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128(2):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2010.10.008 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pfingst BE, Burkholder-Juhasz RA, Zwolan TA, Xu L (2008) Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays. Hear Res 242(1–2):172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.007 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR, Voie AH, Brunsden B, Neely JG, Finley CC (2007) In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 197:2–24CrossRef

35.

Polonenko MJ, Cushing SL, Gordon KA, Allemang B, Jewell S, Papsin BC (2016) Stimulation parameters differ between current anti-modiolar and peri-modiolar electrode arrays implanted within the same child. J Laryngol Otol 130(11):1007–1021CrossRefPubMed

Title: Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays
Authors: Ángel Ramos de Miguel
Andrea A. Argudo
Silvia A. Borkoski Barreiro
Juan Carlos Falcón González
Angel Ramos Macías
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4943-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Potassium titanyl phosphate laser-induced inflammatory response and extracellular matrix turnover in rabbit vocal fold scar

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: evaluation of the vestibular system with cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials

Organ preservation surgery for patients with T4a laryngeal cancer

Impact of odontogenic chronic rhinosinusitis on general health-related quality of life

The microbiology of chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps

Low inter-examiner agreement of the Friedman staging system indicating limited value in patient selection