Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study
Objective This study aims to discern the disparities in the electrode‐to‐modiolus distance (EMD) between cochleostomy and round window approaches when performed sequentially in the same temporal bone. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the cochlear metrics that contribute to these differences...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Laryngoscope 2024-11, Vol.134 (11), p.4736-4744 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 4744 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 4736 |
| container_title | The Laryngoscope |
| container_volume | 134 |
| creator | Sharma, Vidhu Das K, Nidhin Jangra, Anupriya Tiwari, Sarbesh Khera, Pushpinder Soni, Kapil Dixit, Shilpi G. Nayyar, Ashish K. Goyal, Amit |
| description | Objective
This study aims to discern the disparities in the electrode‐to‐modiolus distance (EMD) between cochleostomy and round window approaches when performed sequentially in the same temporal bone. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the cochlear metrics that contribute to these differences.
Methodology
A cross‐sectional study was conducted, involving the sequential insertion of a 12‐electrode array through both round window and cochleostomy approaches in cadaveric temporal bones. Postimplantation high‐resolution CT scans were employed to calculate various parameters.
Results
A total of 12 temporal bones were included in the imaging analysis, revealing a mean cochlear duct length of 32.892 mm. The EMD demonstrated a gradual increase from electrode 1 (C1) in the apex (1.9 ± 0.07 mm; n = 24) to electrode 12 (C12) in the basal turn (4.6 ± 0.24 mm; n = 12; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/lary.31565 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3066790378</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3114823118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3525-85cd66e0ed14e7ce1a048e2980a03be7a42db7db8f9483b097e9224f0c08ec293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctKAzEUhoMoWqsbH0ACbkSo5jKXjLtSr1BRrIKuQiY5A5F00k5mlL69qa0iLtwkgfPl4-f8CB1QckoJYWdONYtTTtMs3UA9mnI6SIoi3US9OOQDkbKXHbQbwhshNOcp2UY7XIiMJCLpofkFzKA2qrTOtgvsK3zpQLeNN4Bbj--8sd51AV_Y0KpaA7Y1flCthboNeDIDbSurf_2ZwPJpfX2Oh3ikjHqHJgLRAw5P2s4s9tBWpVyA_fXdR89Xl0-jm8H4_vp2NBwPNE9ZGmNrk2VAwNAEcg1UxcDACkEU4SXkKmGmzE0pqiIRvCRFDgVjSUU0EaBZwfvoeOWdNX7eQWjl1AYNzqkafBckJ1mWF4TnIqJHf9A33zV1TCc5pYlg8VxSJytKNz6EBio5a-w07l5SIpdFyGUR8quICB-ulV05BfODfm8-AnQFfFgHi39Ucjx8fF1JPwHdV5Mr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3114823118</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Sharma, Vidhu ; Das K, Nidhin ; Jangra, Anupriya ; Tiwari, Sarbesh ; Khera, Pushpinder ; Soni, Kapil ; Dixit, Shilpi G. ; Nayyar, Ashish K. ; Goyal, Amit</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Vidhu ; Das K, Nidhin ; Jangra, Anupriya ; Tiwari, Sarbesh ; Khera, Pushpinder ; Soni, Kapil ; Dixit, Shilpi G. ; Nayyar, Ashish K. ; Goyal, Amit</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
This study aims to discern the disparities in the electrode‐to‐modiolus distance (EMD) between cochleostomy and round window approaches when performed sequentially in the same temporal bone. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the cochlear metrics that contribute to these differences.
Methodology
A cross‐sectional study was conducted, involving the sequential insertion of a 12‐electrode array through both round window and cochleostomy approaches in cadaveric temporal bones. Postimplantation high‐resolution CT scans were employed to calculate various parameters.
Results
A total of 12 temporal bones were included in the imaging analysis, revealing a mean cochlear duct length of 32.892 mm. The EMD demonstrated a gradual increase from electrode 1 (C1) in the apex (1.9 ± 0.07 mm; n = 24) to electrode 12 (C12) in the basal turn (4.6 ± 0.24 mm; n = 12; p < 0.01). Significantly higher EMD values were observed in the cochleostomy group. Correlation analysis indicated a strong positive correlation between EMD and cochlear perimeter (CP) (rs = 0.64; n = 12; p = 0.03) and a strong negative correlation with the depth of insertion (DOI) in both the middle and basal turns (rs = − 0.78; n = 20; p < 0.01). Additionally, EMD showed a strong negative correlation with the DOI‐CP ratio (rs = −0.81; n = 12; p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The cochleostomy group exhibited a significantly higher EMD compared with the round window group. The strong negative correlation between EMD and DOI‐CP ratio suggests that in larger cochleae with shallower insertions, EMD is greater than in smaller cochleae with deeper insertions.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:4736–4744, 2024
An article describing the variability of electrode to modiolus distance among various window of insertion in cochlear implantation, it's association with various cochlear parameters and its significance in the selection of patient specific electrode.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.31565</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38860484</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Cadaver ; Cochlea - anatomy & histology ; Cochlea - diagnostic imaging ; Cochlea - surgery ; Cochlear Implantation - methods ; Cochlear Implants ; cochleostomy ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; depth of insertion ; depth of insertion‐cochlear perimeter ratio ; electrode to modiolus distance ; Electrodes ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Humans ; round window insertion ; Round Window, Ear - anatomy & histology ; Round Window, Ear - diagnostic imaging ; Round Window, Ear - surgery ; Temporal Bone - anatomy & histology ; Temporal Bone - diagnostic imaging ; Temporal Bone - surgery ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2024-11, Vol.134 (11), p.4736-4744</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2024 The Author(s). The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3525-85cd66e0ed14e7ce1a048e2980a03be7a42db7db8f9483b097e9224f0c08ec293</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3547-2329 ; 0000-0002-4339-7541</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flary.31565$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flary.31565$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38860484$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Vidhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das K, Nidhin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jangra, Anupriya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tiwari, Sarbesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khera, Pushpinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soni, Kapil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dixit, Shilpi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayyar, Ashish K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyal, Amit</creatorcontrib><title>Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Objective
This study aims to discern the disparities in the electrode‐to‐modiolus distance (EMD) between cochleostomy and round window approaches when performed sequentially in the same temporal bone. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the cochlear metrics that contribute to these differences.
Methodology
A cross‐sectional study was conducted, involving the sequential insertion of a 12‐electrode array through both round window and cochleostomy approaches in cadaveric temporal bones. Postimplantation high‐resolution CT scans were employed to calculate various parameters.
Results
A total of 12 temporal bones were included in the imaging analysis, revealing a mean cochlear duct length of 32.892 mm. The EMD demonstrated a gradual increase from electrode 1 (C1) in the apex (1.9 ± 0.07 mm; n = 24) to electrode 12 (C12) in the basal turn (4.6 ± 0.24 mm; n = 12; p < 0.01). Significantly higher EMD values were observed in the cochleostomy group. Correlation analysis indicated a strong positive correlation between EMD and cochlear perimeter (CP) (rs = 0.64; n = 12; p = 0.03) and a strong negative correlation with the depth of insertion (DOI) in both the middle and basal turns (rs = − 0.78; n = 20; p < 0.01). Additionally, EMD showed a strong negative correlation with the DOI‐CP ratio (rs = −0.81; n = 12; p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The cochleostomy group exhibited a significantly higher EMD compared with the round window group. The strong negative correlation between EMD and DOI‐CP ratio suggests that in larger cochleae with shallower insertions, EMD is greater than in smaller cochleae with deeper insertions.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:4736–4744, 2024
An article describing the variability of electrode to modiolus distance among various window of insertion in cochlear implantation, it's association with various cochlear parameters and its significance in the selection of patient specific electrode.</description><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Cochlea - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Cochlea - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Cochlea - surgery</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants</subject><subject>cochleostomy</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>depth of insertion</subject><subject>depth of insertion‐cochlear perimeter ratio</subject><subject>electrode to modiolus distance</subject><subject>Electrodes</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>round window insertion</subject><subject>Round Window, Ear - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Round Window, Ear - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Round Window, Ear - surgery</subject><subject>Temporal Bone - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Temporal Bone - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Temporal Bone - surgery</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctKAzEUhoMoWqsbH0ACbkSo5jKXjLtSr1BRrIKuQiY5A5F00k5mlL69qa0iLtwkgfPl4-f8CB1QckoJYWdONYtTTtMs3UA9mnI6SIoi3US9OOQDkbKXHbQbwhshNOcp2UY7XIiMJCLpofkFzKA2qrTOtgvsK3zpQLeNN4Bbj--8sd51AV_Y0KpaA7Y1flCthboNeDIDbSurf_2ZwPJpfX2Oh3ikjHqHJgLRAw5P2s4s9tBWpVyA_fXdR89Xl0-jm8H4_vp2NBwPNE9ZGmNrk2VAwNAEcg1UxcDACkEU4SXkKmGmzE0pqiIRvCRFDgVjSUU0EaBZwfvoeOWdNX7eQWjl1AYNzqkafBckJ1mWF4TnIqJHf9A33zV1TCc5pYlg8VxSJytKNz6EBio5a-w07l5SIpdFyGUR8quICB-ulV05BfODfm8-AnQFfFgHi39Ucjx8fF1JPwHdV5Mr</recordid><startdate>202411</startdate><enddate>202411</enddate><creator>Sharma, Vidhu</creator><creator>Das K, Nidhin</creator><creator>Jangra, Anupriya</creator><creator>Tiwari, Sarbesh</creator><creator>Khera, Pushpinder</creator><creator>Soni, Kapil</creator><creator>Dixit, Shilpi G.</creator><creator>Nayyar, Ashish K.</creator><creator>Goyal, Amit</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3547-2329</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-7541</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202411</creationdate><title>Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study</title><author>Sharma, Vidhu ; Das K, Nidhin ; Jangra, Anupriya ; Tiwari, Sarbesh ; Khera, Pushpinder ; Soni, Kapil ; Dixit, Shilpi G. ; Nayyar, Ashish K. ; Goyal, Amit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3525-85cd66e0ed14e7ce1a048e2980a03be7a42db7db8f9483b097e9224f0c08ec293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Cochlea - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Cochlea - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Cochlea - surgery</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants</topic><topic>cochleostomy</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>depth of insertion</topic><topic>depth of insertion‐cochlear perimeter ratio</topic><topic>electrode to modiolus distance</topic><topic>Electrodes</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>round window insertion</topic><topic>Round Window, Ear - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Round Window, Ear - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Round Window, Ear - surgery</topic><topic>Temporal Bone - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Temporal Bone - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Temporal Bone - surgery</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Vidhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das K, Nidhin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jangra, Anupriya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tiwari, Sarbesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khera, Pushpinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soni, Kapil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dixit, Shilpi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayyar, Ashish K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyal, Amit</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharma, Vidhu</au><au>Das K, Nidhin</au><au>Jangra, Anupriya</au><au>Tiwari, Sarbesh</au><au>Khera, Pushpinder</au><au>Soni, Kapil</au><au>Dixit, Shilpi G.</au><au>Nayyar, Ashish K.</au><au>Goyal, Amit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2024-11</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>134</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>4736</spage><epage>4744</epage><pages>4736-4744</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><abstract>Objective
This study aims to discern the disparities in the electrode‐to‐modiolus distance (EMD) between cochleostomy and round window approaches when performed sequentially in the same temporal bone. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the cochlear metrics that contribute to these differences.
Methodology
A cross‐sectional study was conducted, involving the sequential insertion of a 12‐electrode array through both round window and cochleostomy approaches in cadaveric temporal bones. Postimplantation high‐resolution CT scans were employed to calculate various parameters.
Results
A total of 12 temporal bones were included in the imaging analysis, revealing a mean cochlear duct length of 32.892 mm. The EMD demonstrated a gradual increase from electrode 1 (C1) in the apex (1.9 ± 0.07 mm; n = 24) to electrode 12 (C12) in the basal turn (4.6 ± 0.24 mm; n = 12; p < 0.01). Significantly higher EMD values were observed in the cochleostomy group. Correlation analysis indicated a strong positive correlation between EMD and cochlear perimeter (CP) (rs = 0.64; n = 12; p = 0.03) and a strong negative correlation with the depth of insertion (DOI) in both the middle and basal turns (rs = − 0.78; n = 20; p < 0.01). Additionally, EMD showed a strong negative correlation with the DOI‐CP ratio (rs = −0.81; n = 12; p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The cochleostomy group exhibited a significantly higher EMD compared with the round window group. The strong negative correlation between EMD and DOI‐CP ratio suggests that in larger cochleae with shallower insertions, EMD is greater than in smaller cochleae with deeper insertions.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:4736–4744, 2024
An article describing the variability of electrode to modiolus distance among various window of insertion in cochlear implantation, it's association with various cochlear parameters and its significance in the selection of patient specific electrode.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>38860484</pmid><doi>10.1002/lary.31565</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3547-2329</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-7541</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-852X |
| ispartof | The Laryngoscope, 2024-11, Vol.134 (11), p.4736-4744 |
| issn | 0023-852X 1531-4995 1531-4995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3066790378 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Cadaver Cochlea - anatomy & histology Cochlea - diagnostic imaging Cochlea - surgery Cochlear Implantation - methods Cochlear Implants cochleostomy Cross-Sectional Studies depth of insertion depth of insertion‐cochlear perimeter ratio electrode to modiolus distance Electrodes Electrodes, Implanted Humans round window insertion Round Window, Ear - anatomy & histology Round Window, Ear - diagnostic imaging Round Window, Ear - surgery Temporal Bone - anatomy & histology Temporal Bone - diagnostic imaging Temporal Bone - surgery Tomography, X-Ray Computed |
| title | Dependability of Electrode to Modiolus Distance in Patients Specific Electrode Selection: A Cadaveric Model Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T15%3A11%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dependability%20of%20Electrode%20to%20Modiolus%20Distance%20in%20Patients%20Specific%20Electrode%20Selection:%20A%20Cadaveric%20Model%20Study&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Sharma,%20Vidhu&rft.date=2024-11&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=4736&rft.epage=4744&rft.pages=4736-4744&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.31565&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3114823118%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3114823118&rft_id=info:pmid/38860484&rfr_iscdi=true |