Skip to main content

The impact of electrode type on intraoperative and postoperative telemetry measures in cochlear implant using different surgical technique

En

Abstract

Background

Cochlear implantation (CI) is largely considered successful based on the device’s ability to reliably send electrical signals to the auditory nerve fibers. Telemetry (electrode impedance) is a bidirectional communication system. The telemetry system allows us to test the basic functions of a CI and to detect the electrical problems in each electrode.

Aim

The aims of this study were to monitor electrode telemetry at the intraoperative and initial-activation postoperative periods and to correlate the telemetry measures with the type of inserted electrode and surgical technique.

Patients and methods

A retrospective analysis of impedance data from 69 CI surgeries occurring at the Hearing and Speech Institute was conducted. Intraoperative and postoperative impedance values were available in 69 pediatric and adult patients during the first fitting 3 weeks to 1 month postoperatively. The data obtained in this study were divided into four groups depending on the type of implanted electrode and device used. In this research, four types of electrodes (Mid Scala, 1J, Flex 28, and Standard) and two surgical techniques (cochleostomy and round window) were used.

Results

Findings showed that there is a statistically significant difference between intraoperative and postoperative mean average of telemetry measure for 1J and Flex 28 electrodes that increased postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference between intraoperative and postoperative mean±SD of each of the two electrodes (Mid Scala, 1J, Flex 28, and Standard). Comparison between intraoperative and postoperative average of the four electrodes shows statistically significant difference in intraoperative average. The study also showed that there is no statistical difference between telemetry results when either cochleostomy or round-window approaches were used.

Conclusion

Findings of this research showed increase in postoperative impedance with all types of electrodes, which can be referred to the absence of electrical stimulation prior to initial activation of the device. There is statistically significant difference in intra-operative telemetry average between four types of used electrode.

References

  1. 1

    Clark GM. Cochlear implants: fundamentals and applications. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2003. 160–198

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Schulman JH. Using impedance telemetry to diagnose cochlear electrode history, location and functionality. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 166(Suppl):85–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Cowan RS. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26: 948–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    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: 920–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Dorman MF, Smith LM, Dankowski K, McCandless G, Parkin JL. Long-term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds for the Ineraid cochlear implant. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 1126–1130.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, Lusk RP. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34: 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Shepherd RK, Clark GM, Pyman BC, Webb RL. Banded intracochlear electrode array: evaluation of insertion trauma in human temporal bones. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985; 94(Pt 1):55–59.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Lehnhardt E. Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique. HNO 1993; 41: 356–359.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    House WF. Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation. Cochlear implants: progress and perspectives. In: House WF, Berliner KI, editors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1982; 91(Pt 3):15–20.

  10. 10

    Roland PS, Wright CG, Isaacson B. Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 2007; 117: 1397–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Todt I, Basta D, Ernst A. Does the surgical approach in cochlear implantation influence the occurrence of postoperative vertigo? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 138: 8–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Li PM, Somdas MA, Eddington DK, Nadol JB Jr. Analysis of intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue formation in human subjects with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007; 116: 731–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Nadol JB Jr, Shiao JY, Burgess BJ, Ketten DR, Eddington DK, Gantz BJ et al. Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001; 110:883–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Fayad J, Linthicum FH Jr, Otto SR, Galey FR, House WF. Cochlear implants: histopathologic findings related to performance in 16 human temporal bones. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100:807–811.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Stidham K, Roberson JB. Cochleostomy site: implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125: 870–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005; 115: 796–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Lin JW, Mody A, Tonini R, Emery C, Haymond J, Vrabec JT, Oghalai JS. Characteristics of malfunctioning channels in pediatric cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 2010; 120: 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Neault M, Harris J, Kenna M, Licarneli G. Incidence and time course of individual electrode faults in pediatric cochlear implants. Poster session presented at: Objective Measures in Auditory Implants 6th International Symposium; St. Louis, MO. 2010 Sept 23–25.

  19. 19

    Manolache O, Olariu R, Radulescu L, Cozma S. Electrical impedances variations values in patients with cochlear implant. Romanian J Oral Rehabil 2012; 4: 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Garnham J, Gibbin KP, O’Donoghue GM et al. Retrospective study of intra-operative testing with the Nucleus CI24 cochlear implant and use of the back-up device. Cochlear Implant Int 2003; 4: 1–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Carlson ML, Archibald DJ, Dabade TS, Gifford RH, Neff BA, Beatty CW et al. Prevalence and timing of individual cochlear implant electrode failures. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31: 893–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Clark GM, Shute SA, Shepherd RK, Carter TD. Cochlear implantation: osteoneogenesis, electrode-tissue impedance, and residual hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 40–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 1998; 118: 313–326.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Shiroma M, Honda K, Yamanaka N, Kawano J, Yukawa K, Kumakawa K, Funasaka S. Factors contributing to phoneme recognition ability of users of the 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101: 32–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soha Hamada MD.

Additional information

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work noncommercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamada, S., Omara, A., Sefein, I.K. et al. The impact of electrode type on intraoperative and postoperative telemetry measures in cochlear implant using different surgical technique. Egypt J Otolaryngol 32, 264–270 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.192548

Download citation

Keywords

  • cochlear implant
  • electrodes
  • telemetry