Ear and hearing · 2021
Modiolar Proximity of Slim Modiolar Electrodes and Cochlear Duct Length: Correlation for Potential Basis of Customized Cochlear Implantation With Perimodiolar Electrodes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lee Sang-Yeon, Jung Bae Yun, Carandang Marge, Kim Yoonjoong, Hee Han Jin, Huh Gene, Song Jae-Jin, Koo Ja-Won, Ho Lee Jun, Ha Oh Seung, Choi Byung Yoon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have shown that cochlear duct length (CDL) varies among individuals and could significantly influence the final position of the electrode and its trajectory in the cochlea. Given this, we hypothesized that the degree of modiolar proximity of novel slim modiolar electrodes, such as CI532 and CI632, can also be affected by CDL. To test this hypothesis, we retrospectively evaluated individual CDL to determine if there is any significant correlation of CDL with degree of modiolar proximity.
METHODS: Fifty-one ears from 38 subjects implanted with slim modiolar electrodes by a single surgeon through the round window approach using the pull-back technique were included. Our cohort was classified according to the deafness onset (congenital versus postlingual) and the degree of modiolar proximity (less versus tight) with reference to the spiral diameter made by the slim modiolar electrodes in situ on transorbital x ray. We then analyzed the CDL and its metrics using a readily available surgical preplanning tool (OTOPLAN) to obtain comparable data.
RESULTS: Among 30 ears associated with congenital deafness, 9 ears (30%) showed less modiolar proximity, while none of the 21 ears from 19 subjects with postlingual deafness exhibited "less modiolar proximity" based on our criteria. In this study, CDL showed significant variation among subjects. Importantly, a significant inverse correlation between spiral diameter and CDL (ρ = -0.581, p < 0.001) was found, showing that shorter CDLs have longer spiral diameter and less modiolar proximity. Moreover, further pull-back technique characterized by pulling out the electrode a little bit more in cases with shorter CDL, if not always, exhibited tighter modiolar proximity.
CONCLUSION: A preponderance of less modiolar proximity of the electrode was observed exclusively among congenital deafness cases, demonstrated by a less tight spiral configuration even under the pull-back technique. Our data suggest that shorter CDL is associated with a less tight spiral configuration of slim modiolar electrodes postoperatively. Depending on the insertion technique, the differential degree of modiolar proximity of slim modiolar electrodes can be alleviated in cases with short CDL, which justifies cochlear duct length-based customized insertion of slim modiolar electrodes.
METHODS: Fifty-one ears from 38 subjects implanted with slim modiolar electrodes by a single surgeon through the round window approach using the pull-back technique were included. Our cohort was classified according to the deafness onset (congenital versus postlingual) and the degree of modiolar proximity (less versus tight) with reference to the spiral diameter made by the slim modiolar electrodes in situ on transorbital x ray. We then analyzed the CDL and its metrics using a readily available surgical preplanning tool (OTOPLAN) to obtain comparable data.
RESULTS: Among 30 ears associated with congenital deafness, 9 ears (30%) showed less modiolar proximity, while none of the 21 ears from 19 subjects with postlingual deafness exhibited "less modiolar proximity" based on our criteria. In this study, CDL showed significant variation among subjects. Importantly, a significant inverse correlation between spiral diameter and CDL (ρ = -0.581, p < 0.001) was found, showing that shorter CDLs have longer spiral diameter and less modiolar proximity. Moreover, further pull-back technique characterized by pulling out the electrode a little bit more in cases with shorter CDL, if not always, exhibited tighter modiolar proximity.
CONCLUSION: A preponderance of less modiolar proximity of the electrode was observed exclusively among congenital deafness cases, demonstrated by a less tight spiral configuration even under the pull-back technique. Our data suggest that shorter CDL is associated with a less tight spiral configuration of slim modiolar electrodes postoperatively. Depending on the insertion technique, the differential degree of modiolar proximity of slim modiolar electrodes can be alleviated in cases with short CDL, which justifies cochlear duct length-based customized insertion of slim modiolar electrodes.