The Laryngoscope · 2011
Evaluation of the hybrid-L24 electrode using microcomputed tomography.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Driscoll Colin L W, Carlson Matthew L, Fama Anthony F, Lane John I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To compare electrode array position, and depth of insertion of the Cochlear Hybrid-L24 electrode array following traditional cochleostomy and round window (RW) insertion.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cadaveric temporal bone study.
METHODS: Ten cadaveric temporal bones were implanted with the Hybrid-L24 electrode array; half were introduced through a RW approach, whereas the other half were inserted through a traditional scala tympani cochleostomy. A micro-CT scanner was then used to evaluate electrode position, intracochlear trauma, and depth of insertion.
RESULTS: All electrodes were inserted into the scala tympani without significant resistance. No electrodes demonstrated tip fold-over or through-fracturing of the osseous spiral lamina, basilar membrane, or spiral ligament. The average angular depth of insertion for all 10 electrodes was 252.4°. Compared to cochleostomy insertions, electrodes inserted through the RW more commonly acquired a proximal perimodiolar orientation, followed a more predictable course, and less commonly contacted critical soft tissue structures.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the Hybrid-L24 electrode can be successfully inserted using a RW or traditional cochleostomy technique with minimal intracochlear trauma. Our data also suggests that with this model, RW insertions may provide particular advantages with respect to hearing preservation over the traditional cochleostomy approach.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cadaveric temporal bone study.
METHODS: Ten cadaveric temporal bones were implanted with the Hybrid-L24 electrode array; half were introduced through a RW approach, whereas the other half were inserted through a traditional scala tympani cochleostomy. A micro-CT scanner was then used to evaluate electrode position, intracochlear trauma, and depth of insertion.
RESULTS: All electrodes were inserted into the scala tympani without significant resistance. No electrodes demonstrated tip fold-over or through-fracturing of the osseous spiral lamina, basilar membrane, or spiral ligament. The average angular depth of insertion for all 10 electrodes was 252.4°. Compared to cochleostomy insertions, electrodes inserted through the RW more commonly acquired a proximal perimodiolar orientation, followed a more predictable course, and less commonly contacted critical soft tissue structures.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the Hybrid-L24 electrode can be successfully inserted using a RW or traditional cochleostomy technique with minimal intracochlear trauma. Our data also suggests that with this model, RW insertions may provide particular advantages with respect to hearing preservation over the traditional cochleostomy approach.