Comparison of Round Window and Cochleostomy Approaches with a Prototype Hearing Preservation Electrode

Introduction: Preservation of residual hearing in cochlear implant recipients has been demonstrated to be possible and provides the potential benefit of combined electric and acoustic auditory stimulation. A prototype 16-mm multichannel array has been designed to facilitate placement of 22 electrodes without damage to intracochlear structures. The electrode array is suitable for insertion via the round window membrane (RWM) or a small cochleostomy. Aim: To evaluate the insertion trajectory and the presence of trauma to intracochlear structures with the prototype electrode inserted by either the RWM or a scala tympani cochleostomy. Materials and Methods: Eighteen fresh frozen human temporal bones were prepared for cochlear implantation using a standard transmastoid facial recess technique. Twelve electrodes were implanted at the University of Melbourne and 6 at the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover. In Melbourne fluoroscopy was used to monitor the insertions. Twelve prototype electrodes were inserted via the RWM. A further 6 electrodes were inserted via a small scala tympani cochleostomy. The cochleostomy was sited inferior to the RWM to avoid trauma to the basilar membrane and spiral ligament. Specimens were embedded and fixed with acrylic resin and the cochleae then examined histologically at 200-µm intervals using a grinding and polishing technique. Results: Full insertion of the electrode was achieved without significant resistance in all RWM and cochleostomy specimens. In two RWM specimens fold-over of the electrode tip occurred, and in one specimen the electrode penetrated the spiral ligament to lie in an ‘endosteal ‘position. In one cochleostomy specimen the electrode was rotated within the cochlea to face laterally rather than towards the modiolus. The final electrode position differed for the two groups, with the electrodes inserted via the RWM lying in a more perimodiolar position along the first part of the basal turn. The average depth of insertion was 240° for the RWM electrodes and 255° for the cochleostomy electrodes. Histologic examination showed no damage in any specimen to the modiolus, osseous spiral lamina or basilar membrane. Conclusions: A prototype hearing preservation electrode array was inserted by either a RWM or a scala tympani cochleostomy without evidence of significant intracochlear trauma.

[1]  W Gstöttner,et al.  [Cochlear implantation with preservation of residual deep frequency hearing]. , 2005, HNO.

[2]  R. Laszig,et al.  Einfluss der Insertionstiefe auf den Erhalt von Restgehör nach Cochlear Implantation , 2005 .

[3]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Preservation of Basal Inner Ear Structures in Cochlear Implantation , 2005, ORL.

[4]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[5]  C von Ilberg,et al.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. , 1999, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[6]  Michael Tykocinski,et al.  Cochleostomy site: Implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[7]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations , 1996, Hearing Research.

[8]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Cochlear implant deep electrode insertion: extent of insertional trauma. , 1997, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[10]  Chris James,et al.  Contralateral Masking in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear , 2001, Audiology and Neurotology.

[11]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[12]  G M Clark,et al.  The biologic safety of the Cochlear Corporation multiple-electrode intracochlear implant. , 1988, The American journal of otology.

[13]  Toshio Ishibashi,et al.  Factors Associated with Poor Outcome in Children with Acute Otitis Media , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[14]  D W Kennedy,et al.  Multichannel intracochlear electrodes: Mechanism of insertion trauma , 1987, The Laryngoscope.

[15]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  G M Clark,et al.  Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion , 2001, Cochlear implants international.

[17]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[18]  T. Klenzner,et al.  [The influence of insertion depth on the preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implantation]. , 2005, Laryngo- rhino- otologie.

[19]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[20]  W. Gstöttner,et al.  Kochleaimplantat mit Tieftonrestgehörerhalt , 2004, HNO.

[21]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  Preservation of Residual Hearing in Children and Post-Lingually Deafened Adults after Cochlear Implantation: An Initial Study , 2002, ORL.