Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays

This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array. Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of otolaryngology 2000-03, Vol.21 (2), p.205-211
Hauptverfasser: TYKOCINSKI, M, COHEN, L. T, COHEN, N. L, CLARK, G. M, PYMAN, B. C, ROLAND, T. JR, TREABA, C, PALAMARA, J, DAHM, M. C, SHEPHERD, R. K, JIN XU, COWAN, R. S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 211
container_issue 2
container_start_page 205
container_title American journal of otolaryngology
container_volume 21
creator TYKOCINSKI, M
COHEN, L. T
COHEN, N. L
CLARK, G. M
PYMAN, B. C
ROLAND, T. JR
TREABA, C
PALAMARA, J
DAHM, M. C
SHEPHERD, R. K
JIN XU
COWAN, R. S
description This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array. Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life. The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage. All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority of implanted cochleas were found. Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and atraumatic to implant.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80010-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70996882</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70996882</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-47e37d00e340ee36673868737ec171c541b2a30ea7c463de4a2059593f9ee6633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE1LxDAQhnNQ_Fj9CUoOInqoTjpt0h5l8QsED-o5xHTqRtqmJq3gvze6C3oaeHnemeFh7EjAhQAhL59A1DIDBfUZwHkFICATW2wvxXlWK4m7bD_G95SXiLDDdgUoRFGVe8wsfT-a4KIfuG85dWSn4Bvio49ucil1A59WxFdzbwZuvV11ZPgc3fDGP1PRz5GPFFzvG-c7E_6tMCGYr3jAtlvTRTrczAV7ubl-Xt5lD4-398urh8xiJaasUISqASAsgAilVFjJSqEiK5SwZSFec4NARtlCYkOFyaGsyxrbmkhKxAU7Xe8dg_-YKU66d9FS15mB0pM62allVeUJLNegDT7GQK0e0_smfGkB-sen_vWpf3xqAP3rU4vUO94cmF97av611jITcLIBTLSma4MZrIt_HOYApcRv01mAGg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70996882</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>TYKOCINSKI, M ; COHEN, L. T ; COHEN, N. L ; CLARK, G. M ; PYMAN, B. C ; ROLAND, T. JR ; TREABA, C ; PALAMARA, J ; DAHM, M. C ; SHEPHERD, R. K ; JIN XU ; COWAN, R. S</creator><creatorcontrib>TYKOCINSKI, M ; COHEN, L. T ; COHEN, N. L ; CLARK, G. M ; PYMAN, B. C ; ROLAND, T. JR ; TREABA, C ; PALAMARA, J ; DAHM, M. C ; SHEPHERD, R. K ; JIN XU ; COWAN, R. S</creatorcontrib><description>This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array. Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life. The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage. All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority of implanted cochleas were found. Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and atraumatic to implant.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0192-9763</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0196-0709</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80010-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10733185</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOTBN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Cochlear Implantation ; Electric Stimulation - instrumentation ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Equipment Design ; Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the ear, the auditive nerve and the facial nerve ; Temporal Bone - pathology ; Temporal Bone - surgery</subject><ispartof>American journal of otolaryngology, 2000-03, Vol.21 (2), p.205-211</ispartof><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-47e37d00e340ee36673868737ec171c541b2a30ea7c463de4a2059593f9ee6633</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1320056$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10733185$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>TYKOCINSKI, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, L. T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, N. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLARK, G. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PYMAN, B. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROLAND, T. JR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TREABA, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PALAMARA, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAHM, M. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHEPHERD, R. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JIN XU</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COWAN, R. S</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays</title><title>American journal of otolaryngology</title><addtitle>Am J Otol</addtitle><description>This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array. Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life. The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage. All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority of implanted cochleas were found. Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and atraumatic to implant.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the ear, the auditive nerve and the facial nerve</subject><subject>Temporal Bone - pathology</subject><subject>Temporal Bone - surgery</subject><issn>0192-9763</issn><issn>0196-0709</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkE1LxDAQhnNQ_Fj9CUoOInqoTjpt0h5l8QsED-o5xHTqRtqmJq3gvze6C3oaeHnemeFh7EjAhQAhL59A1DIDBfUZwHkFICATW2wvxXlWK4m7bD_G95SXiLDDdgUoRFGVe8wsfT-a4KIfuG85dWSn4Bvio49ucil1A59WxFdzbwZuvV11ZPgc3fDGP1PRz5GPFFzvG-c7E_6tMCGYr3jAtlvTRTrczAV7ubl-Xt5lD4-398urh8xiJaasUISqASAsgAilVFjJSqEiK5SwZSFec4NARtlCYkOFyaGsyxrbmkhKxAU7Xe8dg_-YKU66d9FS15mB0pM62allVeUJLNegDT7GQK0e0_smfGkB-sen_vWpf3xqAP3rU4vUO94cmF97av611jITcLIBTLSma4MZrIt_HOYApcRv01mAGg</recordid><startdate>20000301</startdate><enddate>20000301</enddate><creator>TYKOCINSKI, M</creator><creator>COHEN, L. T</creator><creator>COHEN, N. L</creator><creator>CLARK, G. M</creator><creator>PYMAN, B. C</creator><creator>ROLAND, T. JR</creator><creator>TREABA, C</creator><creator>PALAMARA, J</creator><creator>DAHM, M. C</creator><creator>SHEPHERD, R. K</creator><creator>JIN XU</creator><creator>COWAN, R. S</creator><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</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>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000301</creationdate><title>Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays</title><author>TYKOCINSKI, M ; COHEN, L. T ; COHEN, N. L ; CLARK, G. M ; PYMAN, B. C ; ROLAND, T. JR ; TREABA, C ; PALAMARA, J ; DAHM, M. C ; SHEPHERD, R. K ; JIN XU ; COWAN, R. S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-47e37d00e340ee36673868737ec171c541b2a30ea7c463de4a2059593f9ee6633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the ear, the auditive nerve and the facial nerve</topic><topic>Temporal Bone - pathology</topic><topic>Temporal Bone - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>TYKOCINSKI, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, L. T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, N. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLARK, G. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PYMAN, B. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ROLAND, T. JR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TREABA, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PALAMARA, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAHM, M. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHEPHERD, R. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JIN XU</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COWAN, R. S</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>American journal of otolaryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>TYKOCINSKI, M</au><au>COHEN, L. T</au><au>COHEN, N. L</au><au>CLARK, G. M</au><au>PYMAN, B. C</au><au>ROLAND, T. JR</au><au>TREABA, C</au><au>PALAMARA, J</au><au>DAHM, M. C</au><au>SHEPHERD, R. K</au><au>JIN XU</au><au>COWAN, R. S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays</atitle><jtitle>American journal of otolaryngology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Otol</addtitle><date>2000-03-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>205</spage><epage>211</epage><pages>205-211</pages><issn>0192-9763</issn><issn>0196-0709</issn><coden>AJOTBN</coden><abstract>This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array. Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life. The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage. All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority of implanted cochleas were found. Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and atraumatic to implant.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott</pub><pmid>10733185</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80010-1</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0192-9763
ispartof American journal of otolaryngology, 2000-03, Vol.21 (2), p.205-211
issn 0192-9763
0196-0709
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70996882
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Cochlear Implantation
Electric Stimulation - instrumentation
Electrodes, Implanted
Equipment Design
Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics
Humans
Medical sciences
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the ear, the auditive nerve and the facial nerve
Temporal Bone - pathology
Temporal Bone - surgery
title Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T21%3A17%3A05IST&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=Comparison%20of%20electrode%20position%20in%20the%20human%20cochlea%20using%20various%20perimodiolar%20electrode%20arrays&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20otolaryngology&rft.au=TYKOCINSKI,%20M&rft.date=2000-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=205&rft.epage=211&rft.pages=205-211&rft.issn=0192-9763&rft.coden=AJOTBN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80010-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70996882%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=70996882&rft_id=info:pmid/10733185&rfr_iscdi=true