Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:19:32.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection of the appropriate cochlear electrode array using a specifically developed research software application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

E H Stefanescu  and
S Motoi
E H Stefanescu*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Faculty of Medicine, ‘Victor Babes’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
S Motoi
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, ‘Victor Babes’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Eugen Horatiu Stefanescu, ENT Department, ‘Victor Babes’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Piața Eftimie Murgu 2, Timișoara 300041, Romania E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the usefulness and reliability of a research software application for the estimation of an individual's cochlear duct length as a basis for electrode selection.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study, 21 consecutive patients (23 ears) implanted with a cochlear electrode were investigated. The study comprised 19 children (2 bilateral) and 2 adults.

Results

The measured ‘A’ distances (the largest distance from the round window to the contralateral wall) corresponded to cochlear duct lengths of 28.5–36.4 mm. The mean cochlear duct length was 34.05 ± 1.72 mm (33.60 ± 2.27 mm in females and 34.35 ± 1.27 mm in males). Full insertion was achieved in all but two cases. No misplaced electrode array or electrode fold-over was detected. In all but three ears, the electrode was chosen based on the research software application's indication.

Conclusion

The results show a good correlation between the pre-operatively predicted insertion depths using the software application and those post-operatively measured using X-ray. The insertion length predicted by the software was always longer than that measured via X-ray.

Keywords

Multidetector Computed TomographyCochlear ImplantsCochlear DuctComputer Applications SoftwareRound WindowEar
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 544 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Dr E H Stefanescu takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Alexiades, G, Dhanasingh, A, Jolly, C. Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:904–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Hochmair, I, Hochmair, E, Nopp, P, Waller, M, Jolly, C. Deep electrode insertion and sound coding in cochlear implants. Hear Res 2015;322:14–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Ketten, DR, Skinner, MW, Wang, G, Vannier, MW, Gates, GA, Neely, JG. In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1998;175:1–16Google ScholarPubMed
4Ulehlova, L, Voldrich, L, Janisch, R. Correlative study of sensory cell density and cochlear length in humans. Hear Res 1987;28:149–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Skinner, MW, Holden, TA, Whiting, BR, Voie, AH, Brunsden, B, Neely, JG et al. In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2007;197:2–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Skinner, MW, Ketten, DR, Holden, LK, Harding, GW, Smith, PG, Gates, GA et al. CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002;3:332–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Tykocinski, M, Cohen, LT, Pyman, BC, Roland, T Jr, Treaba, C, Palamara, J et al. Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays. Am J Otol 2000;21:205–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Escude, B, James, C, Deguine, O, Cochard, N, Eter, E, Fraysse, B. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(suppl 1):27–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Prentiss, S, Staecker, H, Wolford, B. Ipsilateral acoustic electric pitch matching: a case study of cochlear implantation in an up-sloping hearing loss with preserved hearing across multiple frequencies. Cochlear Implants Int 2014;15:161–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Marsh, MA, Xu, J, Blamey, PJ, Whitford, LA, Xu, SA, Silverman, JM et al. Radiologic evaluation of multichannel intracochlear implant insertion depth. Am J Otol 1993;14:386–91Google ScholarPubMed
11Fu, QJ, Shannon, RV. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2002;23:339–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Boyd, PJ. Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes. Ear Hear 2011;32:411–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Adamson, CL, Reid, MA, Davis, RL. Opposite actions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin-3 on firing features and ion channel composition of murine spiral ganglion neurons. J Neurosci 2002;22:1385–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Otte, J, Schuknecht, HF, Kerr, AG. Ganglion cell populations in normal and pathological human cochleae. Implications for cochlear implantation. 1978. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1038Google ScholarPubMed
15Wright, CG, Roland, PS. Temporal bone microdissection for anatomic study of cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int 2005;6:159–68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Blamey, PJ, Pyman, BC, Gordon, M, Clark, GM, Brown, AM, Dowell, RC et al. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:342–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Hodges, AV, Villasuso, E, Balkany, T, Bird, PA, Butts, S, Lee, D et al. Hearing results with deep insertion of cochlear implant electrodes. Am J Otol 1999;20:53–5Google ScholarPubMed
18Finley, CC, Holden, TA, Holden, LK, Whiting, BR, Chole, RA, Neely, GJ et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:920–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Aschendorff, A, Kromeier, J, Klenzner, T, Laszig, R. Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 2007;28:75–9SCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed