Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images

Danieli, Fabiana; Dermacy, Thomas; Amaral, Maria Stella Arantes do; Reis, Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa; Gnansia, Dan; Hyppolito, Miguel Ângelo

doi:10.1007/s00405-020-06156-8

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the differences between test sessions observed with a smaller number of tested ears, whose implants were not re-programmed, overlapped substantially with those having deactivated electrodes. These issues also apply to two later studies (Labadie et al 2016;Danieli et al 2021). This does not of course mean that CT scans are never useful for electrode deactivation; for example, extreme distortion of the electrode array, such as tip foldover, will likely have a severe impact on the representation of the auditory stimulus and will warrant deactivation (Danieli et al 2021).…”

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…These issues also apply to two later studies (Labadie et al 2016;Danieli et al 2021). This does not of course mean that CT scans are never useful for electrode deactivation; for example, extreme distortion of the electrode array, such as tip foldover, will likely have a severe impact on the representation of the auditory stimulus and will warrant deactivation (Danieli et al 2021). However, it does mean that we do not yet have strong evidence supporting widespread and systematic use of CT-based channel deactivation strategies.…”

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update

Carlyon

Goehring

2021

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants (CIs) are the world’s most successful sensory prosthesis and have been the subject of intense research and development in recent decades. We critically review the progress in CI research, and its success in improving patient outcomes, from the turn of the century to the present day. The review focuses on the processing, stimulation, and audiological methods that have been used to try to improve speech perception by human CI listeners, and on fundamental new insights in the response of the auditory system to electrical stimulation. The introduction of directional microphones and of new noise reduction and pre-processing algorithms has produced robust and sometimes substantial improvements. Novel speech-processing algorithms, the use of current-focusing methods, and individualised (patient-by-patient) deactivation of subsets of electrodes have produced more modest improvements. We argue that incremental advances have and will continue to be made, that collectively these may substantially improve patient outcomes, but that the modest size of each individual advance will require greater attention to experimental design and power. We also briefly discuss the potential and limitations of promising technologies that are currently being developed in animal models, and suggest strategies for researchers to collectively maximise the potential of CIs to improve hearing in a wide range of listening situations.

show abstract

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 82%

Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update

Carlyon

Goehring

2021

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These issues also apply to two later studies (Labadie et al, 2016;Danieli et al, 2021). This does of course not mean that CT scans are never useful for electrode deactivation; for example extreme distortion of the electrode array, such as tip foldover, will likely have a severe impact on the representation of the auditory stimulus and will warrant deactivation Carlyon & Goehring -21 st century CI 26 (Danieli et al, 2021). However, it does mean that we do not yet have strong evidence supporting widespread and systematic use of CT-based channel deactivation strategies.…”

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Indeed, the differences between test sessions observed with a smaller number of tested ears, whose implants were not reprogrammed, overlapped substantially with those having deactivated electrodes. These issues also apply to two later studies (Labadie et al, 2016;Danieli et al, 2021). This does of course not mean that CT scans are never useful for electrode deactivation; for example extreme distortion of the electrode array, such as tip foldover, will likely have a severe impact on the representation of the auditory stimulus and will warrant deactivation Carlyon & Goehring -21 st century CI 26 (Danieli et al, 2021).…”

Section: Patient-specific (Bespoke) Programmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implant research and development in the 21st century: A critical update

Carlyon¹,

Goehring²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants (CIs) are the world’s most successful sensory prosthesis and have been the subject of intense research and development in recent decades. We critically review the progress in CI research, and its success in improving patient outcomes, from the turn of the century to the present day. The introduction of directional microphones and of new noise-reduction and pre-processing algorithms have produced robust and sometimes substantial improvements. Improvements from novel speech-processing algorithms, the use of current-focussing methods, and individualised (patient-by-patient) de-activation of subsets of electrodes have been identified but have been more modest. We argue that incremental advances have and will continue to be made, that collectively these may substantially improve patient outcomes, but that the modest size of each individual advance will require greater attention to experimental design and power. We also briefly discuss the potential and limitations of revolutionary technologies, and suggest strategies for researchers to collectively maximise the potential of CIs to improve hearing in a wide range of listening situations.

show abstract

“…Whereas TF classically displays normal intraoperative telemetry measurements (14,16), transimpedance matrix (TIM) can reliably detect TF as found in recent studies (17). Suboptimal placement of the array in the form of TF or kinking, although not ideal, may be successfully managed with deactivation of affected electrodes during mapping if needed (18,19). However, some cases are still best managed with revision surgery to reposition the electrode array, particularly if the malposition causes significant facial nerve co-stimulation, vertigo or reduced speech perception (20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Misplaced Cochlear Implant Electrodes Outside the Cochlea: A Literature Review and Presentation of Radiological and Electrophysiological Findings

Cheung

Kong

Chu

et al. 2022

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothesis:It is possible to detect when misplacement and malposition of the cochlear implant (CI) electrode array has occurred intraoperatively through different investigations. We aim to explore the literature surrounding cochlear implant misplacements and share our personal experience with such cases to formulate a quick-reference guide that may be able to help cochlear implant teams detect misplacements early.Background:Misplacement and malposition of a cochlear implant array can lead to poor hearing outcomes. Where misplacements go undetected during the primary surgery, patients may undergo further surgery to replace the implant array into the correct intracochlear position.Methods:Systematic literature review on cochlear implant misplacements and malpositions and a retrospective review of our program's cases in over 6,000 CI procedures.Results:Twenty-nine cases of CI misplacements are reported in the English literature. Sixteen cases of cochlear implant misplacements are reported from our institution with a rate of 0.28%. A further 12 cases of intracochlear malpositions are presented. The electrophysiological (CI electrically evoked auditory brainstem response, transimpedance matrix) and radiological (X-ray and computed tomography scan) findings from our experience are displayed in a tabulated quick-reference guide to show the possible characteristics of misplaced and malpositioned cochlear implant electrode arrays.Conclusion:Both intraoperative electrophysiological and radiological tests can show when the array has been misplaced or if there is an intracochlear malposition, to prompt timely intra-operative reinsertion to yield better outcomes for patients.

show abstract

Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images

Cited by 11 publications

References 40 publications

Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update

Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update

Cochlear implant research and development in the 21st century: A critical update

Misplaced Cochlear Implant Electrodes Outside the Cochlea: A Literature Review and Presentation of Radiological and Electrophysiological Findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About