Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:55:43.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrophysiological effects of slim straight intracochlear electrode position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2020

F Ordonez ,
H Sudhoff  and
I Todt
F Ordonez
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld University, Germany Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Charité Medical University (Campus-Mitte), Berlin, Germany
H Sudhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld University, Germany
I Todt*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld University, Germany Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Charité Medical University (Campus-Mitte), Berlin, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ingo Todt, Bielefeld University, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Teutoburgerstr. 50, 33604Bielefeld, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +49 521 581 3303
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The electrical current distribution of a cochlear implant electrode within the cochlea is essential for post-operative hearing performance. The slim straight electrode is designed to enable the placement of contacts in a lateral or medial direction to the modiolus. The electrophysiological effect of this different contact direction is so far unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of intracochlear laterally or medially directed electrode contacts on electrophysiological behaviour.

Method

A slim straight electrode was inserted into the cochleae of five patients, and the neural response threshold was measured in a laterally and medially directed contact position. The cochleae in five temporal bone specimens were de-capped allowing an insertional observation of the contact position (lateral versus medial) of the electrode.

Results

There was no difference in neural response threshold between a lateral and a medial position of the contacts. Temporal bone study indicated no intracochlear torsion of the electrode.

Conclusion

Our study provides evidence that the intracochlear position of slim straight electrode contacts does not affect the neural response threshold.

Keywords

ElectrophysiologyTelemetryCochlear ImplantsElectrodes
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 1077 - 1080
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

‡

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the changes has also been published at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215122000342.

Dr I Todt takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Chen, JM, Farb, R, Hanusaik, L, Shipp, D, Nedzelski, JM. Depth and quality of electrode insertion: a radiologic and pitch scaling assessment of two cochlear implant systems. Am J Otol 1999;20:192–7Google ScholarPubMed
Deman, PR, van Dijk, B, Offeciers, FE, Govaerts, PJ. Pitch estimation of a deeply inserted cochlear implant electrode. Int J Audiol 2004;43:363–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finley, 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
Holden, LK, Finley, CC, Firszt, JB, Holden, TA, Brenner, C, Potts, LG et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013;34:342–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, RK, Hatsushika, S, Clark, GM. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res 1993;66:108–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, ML, Abbas, PJ. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:1538–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Weert, S, Stokroos, RJ, Rikers, MM, van Dijk, P. Effect of peri-modiolar cochlear implant positioning on auditory nerve responses: a neural response telemetry study. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:725–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battmer, R, Pesch, J, Stöver, T, Lesinski-Schiedat, A, Lenarz, M, Lenarz, T. Elimination of facial nerve stimulation by reimplantation in cochlear implant subjects. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:918–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymond, M, Pontier, D, Dufour, AB, Moller, AP. Frequency-dependent maintenance of left handedness in humans. Proc Biol Sci 1996;263:1627–33Google ScholarPubMed
Verbist, 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;31:722–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basta, D, Todt, I, Ernst, A. Audiological outcome of the pull-back technique in cochlear implantees. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1391–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aschendorff, A, Kromeier, J, Klenzner, T, Laszig, R. Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 2007(suppl 2);28:75–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grolman, W, Maat, A, Verdam, F, Simis, Y, Carelsen, B, Freling, N et al. 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 2009;30:27–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittmann, P, Ernst, A, Todt, I. Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1010–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todt, I, Basta, D, Eisenschenk, A, Ernst, A. The “pull-back” technique for Nucleus 24 perimodiolar electrode insertion. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:751–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidman, MD, Vivek, P, Dickinson, W. Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a perimodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:620–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar