The effect of the cochlear implant electrode position on the neural response telemetry results: A prospective clinical trial at a single center

Aim: This study aims to investigate the changes in the post-op NRT thresholds of two different implant electrodes of the same brandpositioned laterally within the scala tympani, and the pre-modiolar locations, using the same round window approach.Material and Methods: After CI operation NRT measurements conducted at different times on the Nucleus® CI422 nucleus slimstraight and Nucleus® CI24RE electrode types of two different electrode models.Results: The number of patients who received the Nucleus® CI24RE (ST) electrode and the Nucleus® CI422 nucleus slim straightwere 26 (33.3%) and 56 (66.7%), respectively. NRT values tended to decrease from the basal part of cochlea towards an apex at anytime of evaluation in both types of cochlear implants.Conclusion: There was a difference between Nucleus® CI24RE and Nucleus® CI422 nucleus slim straight groups in terms of NRTthresholds. Nucleus® CI422 nucleus slim straight electrode yielded lower NRT threshold levels.

PDF

___

1. Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Saunders E, et al. Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion. Cochlear Implants Int 2001; 2: 135-49.
2. Eshraghi AA, Yang NW, Balkany TJ. Comparative Study of Cochlear Damage With Three Perimodiolar Electrode Designs. Laryngoscope 2003;113: 415-9.
3. Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:920-8.
4. Arnoldner C, Helbig S, Wagenblast J, et al. Electric acoustic stimulation in patients with postlingual severe high-frequency hearing loss: clinical experience. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2010;67:116-24.
5. Skarzynski H, Matusiak M, Lorens A, et al. Preservation of cochlear structures and hearing when using the Nucleus Slim Straight (CI422) electrode in children. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:332-9.
6. Lenarz T, James C, Cuda D, et al. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. Int J Audiol 2013;52:838-48.
7. Adunka O, Kiefer J. Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2006;135:374-82.
8. Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, et al. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:272-80.
9. Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Cowan RS. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:948-56.
10. Xi X, Ji F, Han D, et al. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays. Orl 2009;71:228-37.
11. Tanamati LF, Bevilacqua MC, Costa OA. Longitudinal study of the ecap measured in children with cochlear implants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009;75:90-6.
12. Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R. Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2017;37:312-9.
13. Telmesani LM, Said NM. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82:28-33.
14. Van Weert S, Stokroos RJ, Rikers MMJG, et al. Effect of peri-modiolar cochlear implant positioning on auditory nerve responses: A neural response telemetry study. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:725-31.
15. Venail F, Mura T, Akkari M, et al. Modeling of Auditory Neuron Response Thresholds with Cochlear Implants. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:394687.
16. Lathuillière M, Merklen F, Piron J-P, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography in children with cochlear implants: The effect of electrode array position on ECAP. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;92:27-31.
17. Gordin A, Papsin B, James A, et al. Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological responses in children. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:908-15.
18. Müller A, Hocke T, Mir-Salim P. Intraoperative findings on ECAP-measurement: Normal or special case? Int J Audiol 2015;54:257–64.
19. van Wermeskerken GKA, van Olphen AF, Graamans K. Imaging of electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1527-31.
20. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013;34:342-60.
21. Busby P, Plant K, Whitford L. Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 2002;3:87-103.
22. Vargas JL, Sainz M, Roldan C, et al. Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012;5:194-200.
23. Christov F, Munder P, Berg L, et al. ECAP analysis in cochlear implant patients as a function of patient’s age and electrode-design. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2016;133:1-3.
24. Mittmann P, Rademacher G, Mutze S, et al. Evaluation of the Relationship between the NRT-Ratio, Cochlear Anatomy, and Insertions Depth of Perimodiolar Cochlear Implant Electrodes. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:706253.