Surgical approach for complete cochlear coverage in EAS-patients after residual hearing loss

English version

Autoři: Nora M. Weiss ^aff001; Anandhan Dhanasingh ^aff002; Sebastian P. Schraven ^aff001; Marko Schulze ^aff003; Soenke Langner ^aff004; Robert Mlynski ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery,”Otto Koerner”Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany ^aff001; MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria ^aff002; Rostock University Medical Center, Institute of Anatomy Gertrudenstraße, Rostock, Germany ^aff003; Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany ^aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223121

Souhrn

Introduction

In cases with residual-hearing (RH) loss after cochlear implantation, a safe method is needed to provide full spectral resolution and as much auditory information as possible without implant replacement. Aim of this study was to prove the feasibility of accessing a partially inserted cochlear-implant-electrode for complete insertion to its maximum length through the external ear canal using a transcanal approach.

Methods

Two CI electrodes were customized with 18 stimulating channels. The electrode design enables the use of 12 active channels available for electrical stimulation inside the cochlea both after partial and full insertion. 10 CI electrodes were implanted in 10 fresh human cadaveric temporal bones. After initial partial insertion by posterior tympanotomy, the electrode was inserted to its maximum length via a transcanal approach. Radiographs and CT scans were performed to confirm the electrode position. The electrodes were investigated via x-ray after removal.

Results

X-ray and CT-scans confirmed the electrode prototypes covering an angular insertion depth between 236° to 307° after initial insertion. Accessing the electrode in the middle ear space was feasible and insertion to its full length was successful. Post-insertion CT confirmed insertion of the 28mm and 31.5mm electrode arrays covering an angular insertion depth between 360° and 540° respectively. No tip foldovers were detected.

Conclusion

This study confirms the feasibility of extending the electrode insertion to its maximum insertion length using a transcanal approach in temporal bone specimens. This constitutes a second stage procedure on demand in EAS-surgery. This may be beneficial for EAS-patients providing electrical stimulation beyond the basal turn of the cochlea once the functional residual hearing is lost, without replacing the entire CI.

Klíčová slova:

Medical implants – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Functional electrical stimulation – Deafness – Middle ear – Cochlea – Prototypes – Surgeons

Zdroje

1. Mick P, Amoodi H, Shipp D, Friesen L, Symons S, Lin V, et al. Hearing preservation with full insertion of the FLEXsoft electrode. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2014;35: e40–4. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318291c66d 24080974

2. Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res. 2017;356: 93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.005 29102129

3. Buchner A, Illg A, Majdani O, Lenarz T. Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12: e0174900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174900 28505158

4. Usami S-I, Moteki H, Tsukada K, Miyagawa M, Nishio S-Y, Takumi Y, et al. Hearing preservation and clinical outcome of 32 consecutive electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) surgeries. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134: 717–727. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.894254 24834939

5. Friedmann DR, Peng R, Fang Y, McMenomey SO, Roland JT, Waltzman SB. Effects of loss of residual hearing on speech performance with the CI422 and the Hybrid-L electrode. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16: 277–284. doi: 10.1179/1754762815Y.0000000008 25912363

6. Carlson ML, Archibald DJ, Gifford RH, Driscoll CL, Beatty CW. Reimplantation with a conventional length electrode following residual hearing loss in four hybrid implant recipients. Cochlear Implants Int. 2012;13: 148–155. doi: 10.1179/1754762811Y.0000000003 22333755

7. Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Jackson M, Shapiro WH, Roland JTJ, Waltzman SB, et al. Reimplantation of hybrid cochlear implant users with a full-length electrode after loss of residual hearing. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2008;29: 168–173. doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31815c4875 18165793

8. Lenarz T. Partial Insertion of Long Flexible Electrodes in Children with High Frequency Hearing Loss. 15th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children CI2017. San Francisco; 2017.

9. Hiraumi H, Yamamoto N, Sakamoto T, Ito J. A minimally invasive approach for cochlear implantation using a microendoscope. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270: 477–481. doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-2004-9 22460526

10. Van Abel KM, Dunn CC, Sladen DP, Oleson JJ, Beatty CW, Neff BA, et al. Hearing preservation among patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2015;36: 416–421. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000703 25575373

11. Heba I, (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Department of Otolaryngology H and NS, Liu AS, Dunn C, Gantz BJ, McMurray B, et al. Patient Specific Factors that Influence Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implantation. 42nd Annual MidWinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology(ARO). 2019.

12. Mady LJ, Sukato DC, Fruit J, Palmer C, Raz Y, Hirsch BE, et al. Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157: 837–847. doi: 10.1177/0194599817707167 28608735

13. Snels C, IntHout J, Mylanus E, Huinck W, Dhooge I. Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2019;40: 145–153. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002083 30624395

14. Jurawitz M-C, Buchner A, Harpel T, Schussler M, Majdani O, Lesinski-Schiedat A, et al. Hearing preservation outcomes with different cochlear implant electrodes: Nucleus(R) Hybrid-L24 and Nucleus Freedom CI422. Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19: 293–309. doi: 10.1159/000360601 25277083

15. Lenarz T, Timm ME, Salcher R, Buchner A. Individual Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation Using the Concept of Partial Insertion. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2019;40: e326–e335. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002127 30741914

16. Manrique-Huarte R, Calavia D, Gallego MA, Manrique M. Cochlear Implant Electrode Array From Partial to Full Insertion in Non-Human Primate Model. J Int Adv Otol. 2018;14: 5–9. doi: 10.5152/iao.2018.5233 29764773

17. Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8: 220–233. doi: 10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9 17318276