» Articles » PMID: 28837630

Influence of Electrode Array Stiffness and Diameter on Hearing in Cochlear Implanted Guinea Pig

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2017 Aug 25
PMID 28837630
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with different stiffnesses or external diameters were implanted in normal hearing guinea pigs via a motorized insertion tool carried on a robot-based arm, and insertion forces were recorded. Array prototypes 0.4 and 0.4R had 0.4 mm external diameter and prototype 0.3 had 0.3 mm external diameter. The axial stiffness was set to 1 for the 0.4 prototype and the stiffnesses of the 0.4R and 0.3 prototypes were calculated from this as 6.8 and 0.8 (relative units), respectively. Hearing was assessed preoperatively by the auditory brainstem response (ABR), and then at day 7 and day 30 post-implantation. A study of the macroscopic anatomy was performed on cochleae harvested at day 30 to examine the scala location of the array. At day 7, guinea pigs implanted with the 0.4R array had significantly poorer hearing results than those implanted with the 0.3 array (26±17.7, 44±23.4, 33±20.5 dB, n = 7, vs 5±8.7, 1±11.6, 12±11.5 dB, n = 6, mean±SEM, respectively, at 8, 16 and 24 kHz, p<0.01) or those implanted with the 0.4 array (44±23.4 dB, n = 7, vs 28±21.7 dB, n = 7, at 16 kHz, p<0.05). Hearing remained stable from day 7 to day 30. The maximal peak of insertion force was higher with the 0.4R array than with the 0.3 array (56±23.8 mN, n = 7, vs 26±8.7 mN, n = 6). Observation of the cochleae showed that an incorrectly positioned electrode array or fibrosis were associated with hearing loss ≥40 dB (at 16 kHz). An optimal position in the scala tympani with a flexible and thin array and prevention of fibrosis should be the primary objectives to preserve hearing during cochlear implantation.

Citing Articles

Multi-axis robotic forceps with decoupled pneumatic actuation and force sensing for cochlear implantation.

Gao H, Liu H, Jia H, Lin Z, Zou Y, Xu Z Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):1648.

PMID: 39952944 PMC: 11828907. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56958-9.


Advances in Evaluation of Electrode Insertion Trauma Induced Residual Hearing loss in Cochlear Implant Recipients and its significance- A Narrative Review.

Das N, Sharma V, Goyal A Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024; 76(5):4949-4957.

PMID: 39376296 PMC: 11456118. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-024-04801-w.


Acute effects of cochleostomy and electrode-array insertion on compound action potentials in normal-hearing guinea pigs.

Jwair S, Ramekers D, Thomeer H, Versnel H Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:978230.

PMID: 36845413 PMC: 9945226. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.978230.


Systematic Literature Review of Hearing Preservation Rates in Cochlear Implantation Associated With Medium- and Longer-Length Flexible Lateral Wall Electrode Arrays.

Van de Heyning P, Dazert S, Gavilan J, Lassaletta L, Lorens A, Rajan G Front Surg. 2022; 9:893839.

PMID: 36034377 PMC: 9407249. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.893839.


Recent Advances in Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design Parameters.

Ertas Y, Ozpolat D, Karasu S, Ashammakhi N Micromachines (Basel). 2022; 13(7).

PMID: 35888898 PMC: 9323156. DOI: 10.3390/mi13071081.


References
1.
Wanna G, Noble J, Gifford R, Dietrich M, Sweeney A, Zhang D . Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36(8):1343-8. PMC: 7187917. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000829. View

2.
Eshraghi A, Lang D, Roell J, van de Water T, Garnham C, Rodrigues H . Mechanisms of programmed cell death signaling in hair cells and support cells post-electrode insertion trauma. Acta Otolaryngol. 2015; 135(4):328-34. DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2015.1012276. View

3.
Torres R, Kazmitcheff G, De Seta D, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Nguyen Y . Improvement of the insertion axis for cochlear implantation with a robot-based system. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 274(2):715-721. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4329-2. View

4.
Roland P, Wright C . Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation: mechanisms of insertional trauma. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 64:11-30. DOI: 10.1159/000094642. View

5.
Clark G, Shute S, Shepherd R, Carter T . Cochlear implantation: osteoneogenesis, electrode-tissue impedance, and residual hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995; 166:40-2. View