Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:27:03.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preservation of cochlear structures and hearing when using the Nucleus Slim Straight (CI422) electrode in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2016

H Skarzynski ,
M Matusiak ,
A Lorens ,
M Furmanek ,
A Pilka  and
P H Skarzynski
H Skarzynski*
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland
M Matusiak
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland
A Lorens
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland
M Furmanek
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland
A Pilka
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland
P H Skarzynski
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland World Hearing Centre, Kajetany, Poland Heart Failure and Cardiac Rehabilitation Department, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland Institute of Sensory Organs, Kajetany, Poland
*
Address for correspondence: Associate Prof Piotr H Skarzynski, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10, 02-042 Warsaw, Poland Fax: +48 22 3560367 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

In cochlear implantation, there are two crucial factors promoting hearing preservation: an atraumatic surgical approach and selection of an electrode that does not damage cochlear structures. This study aimed to evaluate hearing preservation in children implanted with the Nucleus Slim Straight (CI422) electrode.

Methods:

Nineteen children aged 6–18 years, with partial deafness, were implanted using the 6-step Skarzynski procedure. Electrode insertion depth was 20–25 mm. Hearing status was assessed with pure tone audiometry before surgery, and at 1, 5, 9, 12 and 24 months after surgery. Electrode placement was confirmed with computed tomography.

Results:

Mean hearing preservation in the study group at activation of the cochlear implant was 73 per cent (standard deviation = 37 per cent). After 24 months, it was 67 per cent (standard deviation = 45 per cent). On a categorical scale, hearing preservation was possible in 100 per cent of cases.

Conclusion:

Hearing preservation in children implanted with the Nucleus CI422 slim, straight electrode is possible even with 25 mm insertion depth, although the recommended insertion depth is 20 mm. A round window approach using a soft, straight electrode is most conducive to hearing preservation.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantElectric StimulationAcoustic Stimulation
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 332 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Piotrowska, A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit 2003;9:CS20–4Google Scholar
2Hogan, CA, Turner, CW. High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:432–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Matusiak, M, Porowski, M, Skarzynski, PH, James, CJ. Partial deafness treatment with the Nucleus Straight Research Array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurotol 2012;17:82–91Google Scholar
4Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Piotrowska, A, Anderson, A. Partial deafness cochlear implantation in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007;71:1407–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Piotrowska, A, Skarzynski, PH. Hearing preservation in partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit 2010;16:CR555–62Google ScholarPubMed
6Lenarz, T, Stóver, T, Buechner, A, Paasche, G, Briggs, R, Risi, F et al. Temporal bone results and hearing preservation with a new straight electrode. Audiol Neurotol 2006;11(suppl 1):34–41Google Scholar
7Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Zgoda, M, Piotrowska, A, Skarzynski, PH, Szkielkowska, A. Atraumatic round window deep insertion of cochlear electrodes. Acta Otolaryngol 2011;131:740–9Google Scholar
8Carlson, ML, Colin, LW, Driscoll, W, Gifford, RH, Service, GJ, Tombers, NM et al. Implication of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:962–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Skarzynski, H, Matusiak, M, Piotrowska, A, Skarzynski, P. Surgical techniques in partial deafness treatment. J Hear Sci 2012;2:RA9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Piotrowska, A, Anderson, I. Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:41–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Cohen, TL, Xu, J, Xu, SA, Clark, GM. Improved and simplified methods for specifying positions of the electrode bands of a cochlear implant array. Am J Otol 1996;17:859–65Google ScholarPubMed
12Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Matusiak, M, Porowski, M, Skarzynski, PH, James, CJ. Cochlear implantation with the Nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing. Ear Hear 2014;35:e33–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Skarzynski, H, Podskarbi-Fayette, R. A new cochlear implant electrode design for preservation of residual hearing: a temporal bone study. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:435–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Tyler, RS, Wood, EJ. A comparison of manual methods for measuring hearing levels. Audiology 1980;19:316–29Google Scholar
15Xu, J, Xu, SA, Cohen, LT, Clark, GM. Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 2000;21:49–56Google Scholar
16Verbist, BM, Skinner, MW, Cohen, LT, Leake, PA, James, C, Boex, C et al. Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:722–30Google Scholar
17Skarzynski, H, Van de Heyning, P, Agrawal, S, Arauz, SL, Atlas, M, Baumgartner, W et al. Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classification system. Acta Otolaryngol 2013;133(suppl 564):3–13Google Scholar
18Kuthubutheen, J, Hedne, CN, Krishnaswamy, J, Rajan, GP. A case series of pediatric hearing preservation cochlear implantation: a new treatment modality for children with drug-induced or congenital partial deafness. Audiol Neurootol 2012;17:321–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Brown, RF, Hullar, TE, Cadieux, JH, Chole, RA. Residual hearing preservation after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1221–6Google Scholar
20Adunka, OF, Dillon, MT, Adunka, MC, King, ER, Pillsbury, HC, Buchman, CA. Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2509–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Bruce, IA, Bates, JE, Melling, C, Mawman, D, Green, KM. Hearing preservation via a cochleostomy approach and deep insertion of a standard length cochlear implant electrode. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1444–7Google Scholar
22Jeyakumar, A, Peña, SF, Brickman, TM. Round window insertion of precurved electrodes is traumatic. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:52–7Google Scholar
23Sampaio, AL, Araújo, MF, Oliveira, CA. New criteria of indication and selection of patients to cochlear implant. Int J Otolaryngol 2011;2011:573968Google Scholar
24Skarzynski, H, Matusiak, M, Lorens, A, Skarzynski, PH, Porowski, M. Partial deafness treatment in children by using Cochlear SRA electrode: round window surgical technique and evaluation by comparison of preservation of residual hearing and insertion depth angle. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75(suppl 1):27Google Scholar
25Wright, CG, Roland, PS. Vascular trauma during cochlear implantation: a contributor to residual hearing loss? Otol Neurotol 2013;34:402–7Google Scholar
26Erixon, E, Köbler, S, Rask-Andersen, H. Cochlear implantation and hearing preservation: results in 21 consecutively operated patients using the round window approach. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:923–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Mick, P, Amoodi, H, Shipp, D, Friesen, L, Symons, S, Lin, V et al. Hearing preservation with full insertion of the FLEXsoft electrode. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:e40–4Google Scholar
28Nguyen, Y, Miroir, M, Kazmitcheff, G, Sutter, J, Bensidhoum, M, Ferrary, E et al. Cochlear implant insertion forces in microdissected human cochlea to evaluate a prototype array. Audiol Neuorotol 2012;17:290–8Google Scholar
29Prentiss, S, Sykes, K, Staecker, H. Partial deafness cochlear implantation at the University of Kansas: techniques and outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21:197–203Google ScholarPubMed