Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T21:19:30.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2007

Abstract

The preservation of residual hearing is becoming a high priority in cochlear implant surgery. It allows better speech understanding and ensures long-lasting and stable performance; it also allows the possibility, in selected cases, of combining electro-acoustic stimulation in the same ear.

We present the results of a retrospective study of the conservation of residual hearing in three different groups of patients who had undergone cochlear implantation using three different cochlear implant electrode arrays, combined with three different surgical techniques for the cochleostomy. The study aimed to evaluate which approach allowed greater preservation of residual hearing.

The best residual hearing preservation results (i.e. preservation in 81.8 per cent of patients) were achieved with the Contour Advance electrode array, using the Advance Off-Stylet technique and performing a modified anterior inferior cochleostomy; this combination enabled reduced trauma to the lateral wall of the cochlea during electrode insertion.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

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

2 Kiefer, J, von Ilberg, C, Reimer, B, Knecht, R, Gall, V, Diller, G et al. Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss – implications for patient selection. Audiology 1998;37:382–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Van Dijk, JE, van Olphen, AF, Langereis, MC, Mens, LH, Brokx, JP, Smoorenburg, GF. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38:109–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Moralee, SJ. The effect of inflammation on spiral ganglion cell density measurements in the cat cochlea. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000;25:492–410.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00373.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Miura, M, Sando, I, Hirsch, BE, Orita, Y. Analysis of spiral ganglion cell populations in children with normal and pathological ears. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:1059–6510.1177/000348940211101201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Leake, PA, Hradek, GT, Snyder, RL. Chronic electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant promotes survival of spiral ganglion neurons after neonatal deafness. J Comp Neurol 1999;412:543–623.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Gantz, BJ, Turner, CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1726–30Google Scholar
8 Gantz, BJ, Turner, C. Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:344–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Gstoettner, W, Kiefer, J, Baumgartner, WD, Pok, S, Peters, S, Adunka, O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:348–5210.1080/00016480410016432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Fraysse, B, Macias, AR, Sterkers, O, Burdo, S, Ramsden, R, Deguine, O et al. Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:624–3310.1097/01.mao.0000226289.04048.0fCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 James, C, Albegger, K, Battmer, R, Burdo, S, Deggouj, N, Deguine, O et al. Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:481–9110.1080/00016480510026197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Lehnhardt, E. Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique [in German]. HNO 1993;41:356–9Google ScholarPubMed
13 Nucleus freedom implant with Contour Advance Electrode CI24RE(CA). Surgeon's Guide. Australia: Cochlear Ltd, 2005Google Scholar
14 Burdo, S et al. In: , C.R.O, ed. Common protocol for the evaluation of the outcomes in audiology rehabiliation. Italy: Flourence, 1997Google Scholar
15 Berrettini, S, Ravecca, F, Forli, F, Sellari-Franceschini, S, Piragine, F. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to progressive sensorineural hearing loss [in Italian]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1998;18(suppl 59):8794Google ScholarPubMed
16 Kos, MI, Boex, C, Sigrist, A, Guyot, JP, Pelizzone, M. Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:474–8010.1080/00016480510039995CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17 Roland, PS, Wright, CG. Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation: mechanisms of insertional trauma. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2006;64:1130Google ScholarPubMed
18 Xu, J, Xu, SA, Cohen, LT, Clark, GM. Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 2000;21:4956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Aschendorff, A, Klenzner, T, Richter, B, Kubalek, R, Nagursky, H, Laszig, R. Evaluation of the HiFocus electrode array with positioner in human temporal bones. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:527–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Kiefer, J, Gstoettner, W, Baumgartner, W, Pok, SM, Tillein, J, Ye, Q et al. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:272–8010.1080/00016480310000755aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Adunka, O, Unkelbach, MH, Mack, M, Hambek, M, Gstoettner, W, Kiefer, J. Cochlear implantation via the round window membrane minimizes trauma to cochlear structures: a histologically controlled insertion study. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:807–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Adunka, O, Kiefer, J, Unkelbach, MH, Lehnert, T, Gstoettner, W. Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1237–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Eshraghi, AA, Yang, NW, Balkany, TJ. Comparative study of cochlear damage with three perimodiolar electrode designs. Laryngoscope 2003;113:415–1910.1097/00005537-200303000-00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 Richter, B, Aschendorff, A, Lohnstein, P, Husstedt, H, Nagursky, H, Laszig, R. The Nucleus Contour electrode array: a radiological and histological study. Laryngoscope 2001;111:508–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Gstoettner, WK, Adunka, O, Franz, P, Hamzavi, J Jr, Plenk, H Jr, Susani, M et al. Perimodiolar electrodes in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:216–19Google ScholarPubMed
26 Tykocinski, M, Saunders, E, Cohen, LT, Treaba, C, Briggs, RJ, Gibson, P et al. The contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:3341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27 Wardrop, P, Whinney, D, Rebscher, SJ, Roland, JT Jr, Luxford, W, Leake, PA. A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: Comparison of Nucleus banded and Nucleus Contour electrodes. Hear Res 2005;203:5467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28 Klenzner, T, Richter, B, Nagursky, H, Schipper, J, Laszig, R, Aschendorff, A. Evaluation of the insertion-trauma of the Nucleus Contour Advance electrode-array in a human temporal bone model [in German]. Laryngorhinootologie 2004;83:840–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Hodges, AV, Schloffman, J, Balkany, T. Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1997;18:179–83Google ScholarPubMed
30 Fraysse, B, Dillier, N, Klenzner, T, Laszig, R, Manrique, M, Morera Perez, C et al. Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study. Am J Otol 1998;19:591–7Google ScholarPubMed
31 Hodges, 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
32 Lehnhardt, E. Cochlear implant for children: indications and surgical aspects [in German]. Wien Med Wochenschr 1994;144:810,12,14Google ScholarPubMed