» Articles » PMID: 36459250

Anodic Polarity Minimizes Facial Nerve Stimulation As a Side Effect of Cochlear Implantation

Overview
Date 2022 Dec 2
PMID 36459250
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

One severe side effect of the use of cochlear implants (CI) is coincidental facial nerve stimulation (FNS). Clinical methods to alleviate FNS range from the reprogramming of processor settings to revision surgery. We systematically assessed different changes in CI stimulation modes that have been discussed in the literature as "rescue factors" from FNS: electrode configuration (broad to focused), pulse shape (symmetric biphasic to pseudo-monophasic), and pulse polarity (cathodic to anodic). An FNS was assessed, based on electrophysiological thresholds, in 204 electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) input/output functions recorded from 33 ears of 26 guinea pigs. The stimulation level difference between auditory nerve eCAP threshold and FNS threshold was expressed as the eCAP-to-FNS offset. Coincidental FNS occurred in all animals and in 45% of all recordings. A change from monopolar to focused (bipolar, tripolar) configurations minimized FNS. The Euclidean distance between the CI contacts and the facial nerve explained no more than 33% of the variance in FNS thresholds. For both the FNS threshold and the eCAP-to-FNS offset, the change from cathodic to anodic pulse polarity significantly reduced FNS and permitted a gain of 14-71% of the dynamic range of the eCAP response. This "anodic rescue effect" was stronger for pseudo-monophasic pulses as compared to the symmetric biphasic pulse shape. These results provide possible mechanisms underlying recent clinical interventions to alleviate FNS. The "anodic-rescue effect" may offer a non-invasive therapeutic option for FNS in human CI users that should be tested clinically, preferably in combination with current-focusing methods.

Citing Articles

Effects of stimulus polarity on the local evoked potential in auditory brainstem implant users.

Schroder A, Takanen M, Schwarz K, Lenarz T, Gartner L, Buchner A Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):5832.

PMID: 39966629 PMC: 11836220. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-90114-z.


An Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Marker for Local Spiral Ganglion Neuron Degeneration: The Failure Index.

Konerding W, Arenberg J, Sznabel D, Kral A, Baumhoff P J Neurosci. 2024; 45(7).

PMID: 39663117 PMC: 11823333. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0954-24.2024.


Hearing Performance in Cochlear Implant Users Who Have Facial Nerve Stimulation.

Rocha L, Goffi-Gomez M, Hoshino A, Tsuji R, Bento R Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; 28(2):e301-e306.

PMID: 38618606 PMC: 11008942. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775809.


Cochlear Implant Stimulation Parameters Play a Key Role in Reducing Facial Nerve Stimulation.

Gartner L, Backus B, Le Goff N, Morgenstern A, Lenarz T, Buchner A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(19).

PMID: 37834838 PMC: 10573649. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196194.

References
1.
Seyyedi M, Herrmann B, Eddington D, Nadol Jr J . The pathologic basis of facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis and multi-channel cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2013; 34(9):1603-9. PMC: 3825753. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182979398. View

2.
Kruschinski C, Weber B, Pabst R . Clinical relevance of the distance between the cochlea and the facial nerve in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2003; 24(5):823-7. DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200309000-00022. View

3.
Alnafjan F, Hasan Z, Sanli H, da Cruz M . Risk Factors for Facial Nerve and Other Nonauditory Side Effects Following Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2021; 42(8):e1022-e1029. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003162. View

4.
Kelsall D, Shallop J, Brammeier T, Prenger E . Facial nerve stimulation after Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implantation. Am J Otol. 1997; 18(3):336-41. View

5.
Navntoft C, Marozeau J, Barkat T . Ramped pulse shapes are more efficient for cochlear implant stimulation in an animal model. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):3288. PMC: 7039949. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60181-5. View