Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T07:40:50.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of cochlear implant insertion technique on post-operative neural response telemetry and impedance in paediatric patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2022

S B Hashemi ,
M Janipour Open the ORCID record for M Janipour [Opens in a new window] ,
R Jahangiri  and
A Babaei Open the ORCID record for A Babaei [Opens in a new window]
S B Hashemi
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Research Centre, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
M Janipour*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Research Centre, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
R Jahangiri
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Research Centre, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
A Babaei
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Research Centre, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Masoud Janipour, Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Khalili Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran E-mail: masood.janipoor@gmail.com Fax: +98 713 629 1478
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare neural response telemetry and impedance between the round window and cochleostomy approaches for cochlear implantation.

Methods

In this case–control study, 64 patients aged less than 3.5 years underwent cochlear implantation via the round window or cochleostomy approach. Post-operative neural response telemetry and impedance were measured.

Results

The impedance measurements at electrodes 1, 11 and 22 showed no significant differences between the two groups three months after implantation (p = 0.90, p = 0.08 and p = 0.37, respectively). Similar results were observed six months after implantation (p = 0.71, p = 0.65 and p = 0.70, respectively). There was no significant difference in neural response telemetry between the two groups after three months. The neural response telemetry of electrode 1 in the cochleostomy group (171.26 ± 19.81 μV) was significantly higher in comparison with that of electrode 1 in the round window group (161.97 ± 12.71 μV) after six months (p = 0.03). The neural response telemetry values for electrodes 11 and 22 did not show any significant difference after six months (p = 0.14 and p = 0.48, respectively).

Conclusion

Both approaches provide equal stimulation of the cochlear nerve and impedance.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationSensorineural Hearing LossNeurotologyAcoustic Impedance Tests

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 4 , April 2023 , pp. 363 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr M Janipour takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Daneshi, A, Farhadi, M, Ajalloueyan, M, Rajati, M, Hashemi, SB, Ghasemi, MM et al. Cochlear implantation in children with inner ear malformation: a multicenter study on auditory performance and speech production outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;132:109901CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Awad, AH, Rashad, UM, Gamal, N, Youssif, MA. Surgical complications of cochlear implantation in a tertiary university hospital. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:61–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashemi, SB, Bozorgi, H, Kazemi, T, Babaei, A. Cerebrospinal fluid gusher in cochlear implant and its associated factors. Acta Otolaryngol 2020;140:621–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, GM. The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit. Hear Res 2015;322:4–1310.1016/j.heares.2014.08.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foggia, MJ, Quevedo, RV, Hansen, MR. Intracochlear fibrosis and the foreign body response to cochlear implant biomaterials. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2019;4:678–8310.1002/lio2.329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;116:731–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khater, A, El-Anwar, MW. Methods of hearing preservation during cochlear implantation. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;21:297–301Google ScholarPubMed
O'Connell, BP, Hunter, JB, Wanna, GB. The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016;1:169–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, S, Gaurkar, S, Deshmukh, PT, Khatri, M, Kalambe, S, Lakhotia, P et al. Applied anatomy of round window and adjacent structures of tympanum related to cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2019;85:435–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuermer, K, Winter, T, Nachtsheim, L, Klussmann, JP, Luers, JC. Round window accessibility during cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:363–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajput, M, Nilakantan, A. Functional outcomes in cochleostomy and round window insertion technique: difference or no difference? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;71:1615–2010.1007/s12070-019-01688-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naderpour, M, Aminzadeh, Z, Jabbari Moghaddam, Y, Pourshiri, B, Ariafar, A, Akhondi, A. Comparison of the pediatric cochlear implantation using round window and cochleostomy. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2020;32:3–10Google ScholarPubMed
Elafandi, H, Khalifa, MA, Elguindy, AS. Cochlear implantation outcomes with round window electrode insertion versus cochleostomy insertion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;138:11027210.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, X, Wang, B, Liu, Y, Yuan, Y, Shu, Y, Chen, B. Comparable electrode impedance and speech perception at 12 months after cochlear implantation using round window versus cochleostomy: an analysis of 40 patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2018;80:248–5810.1159/000490764CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittmann, P, Rademacher, G, Mutze, S, Hassepass, F, Ernst, A, Todt, I. Evaluation of the relationship between the NRT-ratio, cochlear anatomy, and insertions depth of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:70625310.1155/2015/706253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraaijenga, VJC, Derksen, TC, Stegeman, I, Smit, AL. The effect of side of implantation on unilateral cochlear implant performance in patients with prelingual and postlingual sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:440–910.1111/coa.12988CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittmann, P, Ernst, A, Todt, I. Intraoperative electrophysiologic variations caused by the scalar position of cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1010–1410.1097/MAO.0000000000000736CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hey, M, Böhnke, B, Dillier, N, Hoppe, U, Eskilsson, G, Löwgren, K et al. The Intra-cochlear Impedance-Matrix (IIM) test for the Nucleus® cochlear implant. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2015;60:123–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilk, M, Hessler, R, Mugridge, K, Jolly, C, Fehr, M, Lenarz, T et al. Impedance changes and fibrous tissue growth after cochlear implantation are correlated and can be reduced using a dexamethasone eluting electrode. PLoS One 2016;11:e0147552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richard, C, Fayad, JN, Doherty, J, Linthicum, FH Jr. Round window versus cochleostomy technique in cochlear implantation: histologic findings. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1181–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiam, NT, Limb, CJ. The impact of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on interscalar excursions in the cochlea: preliminary results from a flat-panel computed tomography study. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;2:142–710.1016/j.wjorl.2016.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiam, NT, Jiradejvong, P, Pearl, MS, Limb, CJ. The effect of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on cochlear implant electrode position: a flat-panel computed tomography study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;142:873–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayrak, S, Mutlu, B, Kırkım, G, Şerbetçioğlu, B. Examination and comparison of electrically evoked compound action potentials and electrically evoked auditory brainstem response results of children with cochlear implantation without inner ear anomaly. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;57:81–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamerschmidt, R, Schuch, LH, Rezende, RK, Wiemes, GR, Oliveira, AK, Mocellin, M. A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012;78:71–510.1590/S1808-86942012000400014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havenith, S, Lammers, MJ, Tange, RA, Trabalzini, F, della Volpe, A, van der Heijden, GJ et al. Hearing preservation surgery: cochleostomy or round window approach? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:667–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, CH, Hsu, CJ, Chen, PR, Wu, HP. Residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation via round window or cochleostomy approach. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1715–1910.1002/lary.25122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, BJ, Kim, AH. Comparison of cochlear implant performance after round window electrode insertion compared with traditional cochleostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:822–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adunka, OF, Dillon, MT, Adunka, MC, King, ER, Pillsbury, HC, Buchman, CA. Cochleostomy versus round window insertions: influence on functional outcomes in electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:613–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X, Xie, L, Wang, Y, Yang, B. Lower initial electrode impedances in minimally invasive cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2019;139:389–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gudis, DA, Montes, M, Bigelow, DC, Ruckenstein, MJ. The round window: is it the “cochleostomy” of choice? Experience in 130 consecutive cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1497–501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed