A COMPARISON OF IMPEDANCES, DYNAMIC RANGES AND NRTs FOR THE NUCLEUS 422 AND CONTOUR ELECTRODE ARRAYS

Similar documents
The relationship between electric charge requirements and speech recognition of adult cochlear implant recipients

ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Perimodiolar electrode position: Effects on thresholds, comfort levels, impedance measurements, and neural response telemetry

A Psychophysics experimental software to evaluate electrical pitch discrimination in Nucleus cochlear implanted patients

Hearing preservation in children using various electrode arrays

Electrode Trauma Assessed by Microdissection

Difficult Cases: Controversies in Cochlear Implantation

trauma? Bilateral Implants Electro-acoustic implants Preservation of ganglion cells?

CNI Colorado Neurological Institute

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online:

Fitting of the Hearing System Affects Partial Deafness Cochlear Implant Performance

Enduring Long-Term Speech Comprehension Benefits of Apical Stimulation in Cochlear Implantation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Academic in Confidence data removed

STATE OF THE ART IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: CONCEPTS IN MINIMALLY TRAUMATIC SURGERY!

research directions Cochlear implant G.M.CLARK FREQUENCY CODING ELECTRICAL RATE STIMULATION - PHYSIOLOGY AND PSYCHOPHYSICS Department ofotolaryngology

ELECTRICAL IMPEDANCES VARIATIONS VALUES IN PATIENTS WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANT

Basic Fitting and Evaluation Parameters of a Newly Designed Cochlear Implant Electrode

For Professionals. Electrode Arrays. Designed for Atraumatic Implantation Providing Superior Hearing Performance

SOLUTIONS Homework #3. Introduction to Engineering in Medicine and Biology ECEN 1001 Due Tues. 9/30/03

Nucleus Reliability Report

Cochlear Implants. What is a Cochlear Implant (CI)? Audiological Rehabilitation SPA 4321

COCHLEAR NUCLEUS IMPLANT RELIABILITY REPORT. Volume 15 January 2017

COCHLEAR NUCLEUS IMPLANT RELIABILITY REPORT. Volume 16 December 2017

Complete Cochlear Coverage WITH MED-EL S DEEP INSERTION ELECTRODE

ISSN: VOLUME 3 ISSUE

Electrode Impedance among Children Using the Combi-40+ Medel Cochlear Implant

Localization Abilities after Cochlear Implantation in Cases of Single-Sided Deafness

Rebekah F. Cunningham, PhD

Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation

Acoustic and Electric Same Ear Hearing in Patients with a Standard Electrode Array

Study Sample: Twelve postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. All were experienced users of the Advanced Bionics CI system.

Jack Noble, PhD, René Gifford, PhD, Benoit Dawant, PhD, and Robert Labadie, MD, PhD

Hearing Preservation and Speech Outcomes in Pediatric Recipients of Cochlear Implants

Our Experience with AB HiFocus MSE Cochlear Implant from Laboratory to OR: Electrode and Access Variables

Physiologic Consequences of Intracochlear Electrode Placement. Oliver F. Adunka, MD, FACS Craig A. Buchman, MD, FACS Douglas C.

Considerations and Rationale for Cochlear Implant Electrode Design - Past, Present and Future

COCHLEAR NUCLEUS RELIABILITY REPORT. Volume 14 February 2016

1- Cochlear Impedance Telemetry

For Professionals. SYNCHRONY System. In Sync with Natural Hearing

Chapter 9 The consequences of neural degeneration regarding optimal cochlear implant position in scala tympani: A model approach

Longitudinal Analysis of the Absence of Intraoperative Neural Response Telemetry in Children using Cochlear Implants

Clinical Experience and Outcomes with the New Slim Modiolar CI532 Electrode

ANNUAL REPORT

Cochlear Implant Impedance Fluctuation in Ménière s Disease: A Case Study

KEYHOLE COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION

HOW TO IMPROVE COCHLEAR IMPLANT IN ADULT

Comparing Speech Perception Abilities of Children with Cochlear Implants and Digital Hearing Aids

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The Contour Electrode Array: Safety Study and Initial Patient Trials of a New Perimodiolar Design

HOW TO IMPROVE COCHLEAR IMPLANT IN ADULT

Cochlear Implant The only hope for severely Deaf

Hearing the Universal Language: Music and Cochlear Implants

Peter S Roland M.D. UTSouthwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas Developments

The Auditory Brainstem Implant. Manchester Royal Infirmary

Cochlear Implantation for Pediatric Patients with Single-Sided Deafness

Optimal electrode diameter in relation to volume of the cochlea

The number of cochlear implantations is increasing rapidly,

Quick Guide - eabr with Eclipse

How We Do It: Tips for programming the speech processor of an 18-month-old

UP Bioengineering Our people

Across-Site Variation in Detection Thresholds and Maximum Comfortable Loudness Levels for Cochlear Implants

C ochlear implantation has been recommended for

Feasibility And Satisfaction Of Remote Programming Recipients In Their Homes

Auditory Brainstem Implants in Non-NFII Pediatric Patients:

PRECURVED ELECTRODE ARRAY AND INSERTION TOOL

Active positioning device for a perimodiolar cochlear electrode array

Required Slide. Session Objectives

College of Medicine Dept. of Medical physics Physics of ear and hearing /CH

Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions

Cochlear implants. Carol De Filippo Viet Nam Teacher Education Institute June 2010

HEARING AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children identified in newborn hearing screening: Why the rush?

Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory. In un

Hearts for Hearing Audiology Fourth Year Externship (Pediatric/CI)

Philipp Mittmann, 1 Grit Rademacher, 2 Sven Mutze, 2 Frederike Hassepass, 3 Arneborg Ernst, 1 and Ingo Todt Introduction

Deafness and hearing impairment

Methods of Hearing Preservation during Cochlear Implantation

Is the Referral Pathway a Barrier to Candidacy Evaluation for Cochlear Implantation in Adults with a Postlingual Severe To Profound Hearing Loss?

Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in the Same Ear

The Importance of Electrode Location in Cochlear Implantation

Nancy Cambron, Au.D. Chair, VHA Cochlear Implant Advisory Board Department of Veterans Affairs VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington

Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Neurofibromatosis Type II: Outcomes, Benefits, and Limitations

BORDERLINE PATIENTS AND THE BRIDGE BETWEEN HEARING AIDS AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Neurophysiological effects of simulated auditory prosthesis stimulation

Cochlear implants. Aaron G Benson MD Board Certified Otolaryngologist Board Certified Neurotologist

Research Article MRI-Based Estimation of Scalar Cochlear-Implant Electrode Position

Baseline Hearing Levels Post-Surgery for the Southern Cochlear Implant Program

I. INTRODUCTION J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116 (4), Pt. 1, October /2004/116(4)/2258/11/$ Acoustical Society of America

Cochlear Implants: The Role of the Early Intervention Specialist. Carissa Moeggenberg, MA, CCC-A February 25, 2008

ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Revision Cochlear Implantation for Facial Nerve Stimulation in Otosclerosis

Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation: Benefits of Bilateral Acoustic Hearing

COM3502/4502/6502 SPEECH PROCESSING

AUDL GS08/GAV1 Signals, systems, acoustics and the ear. Pitch & Binaural listening

SpH 559/659 Clinical Studies, Adult Hearing Assessment and Hearing Instruments First Rotation

Implantable Treatments for Different Types of Hearing Loss. Margaret Dillon, AuD Marcia Adunka, AuD

Psychosocial Determinants of Quality of Life and CI Outcome in Older Adults

ALESSANDRA RUSSO MD GRUPPO OTOLOGICO

An Auditory-Model-Based Electrical Stimulation Strategy Incorporating Tonal Information for Cochlear Implant

The mammalian cochlea possesses two classes of afferent neurons and two classes of efferent neurons.

MULTIPOLAR ELECTRODE CONFIGURATIONS AND SIMULTANEOUS STIMULATION

Transcription:

A COMPARISON OF IMPEDANCES, DYNAMIC RANGES AND NRTs FOR THE NUCLEUS 422 AND CONTOUR ELECTRODE ARRAYS December 13, 2014! Sandra Velandia, AuD! Ear Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami! 1

Sandra Velandia, AuD Diane Martinez, AuD Annelle Hodges, PhD! Rosemary Ojo, MD Simon Angeli, MD! University of Miami Ear Institute Miller School of Medicine! 2

Background! A pre-curved, perimodiolar electrode array was introduced by Cochlear Corporation in 2000 to replace the straight Nucleus 22.!! Claudiu Treaba, Tom Roland and surgeons from Australia, Germany and the U.S. were major contributors in the design of the Contour Advance electrode.! With this design the stimulation contacts are placed closer to the spiral ganglion cells by matching the natural shape of the cochlea.! Focused spiral ganglion stimulation could be achieved with modiolar wall electrode placement.! 3

Background! Research had shown that perimodiolar electrodes deliver unprecedented hearing performance, more focused stimulation and greater power efficiency.! With introduction of the contour electrode, changes in programming as compared to the N22 straight electrode were noted.! T and C levels seemed to be much more consistent.!! 4

! N22 map! Contour map! 5

Background! Skarzynski et al.2012: preliminary report described the new, thinner, lateral wall intracochlear electrode array that was incorporated into the Nucleus Straight Research Array (SRA) cochlear implant.! Developed by the first author in collaboration with Cochlear Ltd., Sydney.! The SRA, renamed Slim Straight TM array, is now available in the Nucleus CI422.! 6

Characteristics of the CA and the CI422! Characteristics! Contour Advance Electrode Array! CI422 Electrode Array! Design Concept! Pre -Curved for perimodiolar wall placement (modiolus hugging)! Focused spiral ganglion stimulation and greater power efficiency! Slim Straight! Smooth surface to minimize trauma! For lateral wall placement! Receiver Stimulator! CIRE24! CIRE24! Active Length! 15 mm! 20 mm! 7

Characteristics of the CA and the CI422! Characteristics! Contour Advance Electrode Array! CI422 Electrode Array! Diameter at apex! 0.5 mm! 0.3 mm! Diameter at base! 0.8 mm! 0.6 mm! Diameter at tip! 0.2 mm! Electrode Contacts! 22 half- banded! Medial facing! Larger surface contact positioned in a non-uniform arrangement! 22 half- banded! Medial facing! 8

Case study-map comparison! CI 422! Contour! 9

Examples of programming with the two electrodes! Contour map! CI422 map! 10

Hypothesis! The modiolar wall placement of the Contour electrode produces more consistent proximity to the spiral ganglion cells and thus results in more consistent T and C levels, greater power efficiency, and less variation in impedances than the Slim Straight lateral wall design.! 11

Retrospective chart review! Methods: Procedures! Data recorded at second programming and at 3 to 6 month programming sessions! Data analyzed statistically to determine if actual differences exist between the two electrode designs! 12

Data recorded included:! Threshold levels! Comfort levels! NRT thresholds! Dynamic range! Pulse width! Impedances! Methods: Procedures! 13

Methods: Subjects! 91 subjects for impedance comparison! 62 CI 422 patients implanted between 2012 and 2014! 29 Contour Advance patients implanted between 2011 and 2014! No CI512 patients were included! Gender! 43 female! 48 male! Mean age at implant 46! Age range 7 months to 89 years! 14

Methods: Subjects! 54 subjects with complete data:! 40 CI 422 users! 14 Contour users! Gender! 28 females! 25 males! Mean age at implantation 46 years! Age range 5-89 years! 15

! Inclusion criteria included:! Programmed by counting T levels! Methods: Subjects! Consistent and reliable judgment of C levels or presence of stapedial reflexes! 16

Results! Are T and C levels different for the two electrode designs?!! This could not be analyzed with current data. Variations in PW could not be taken into account due to sample sizes! 17

Results! Are pulse widths different between the two electrode designs?!!! 25! 37! 50! 422! 57%! 38%! 5%! Contour! 79%! 21%! 0%! 18

Results! Are impedances different for the two electrode designs? No significant differences at 95% confidence intervals!!! 2 nd visit 3 to 6 mo visit Impedance! Impedance! 13.00! 12.00! 11.00! 10.00! 9.00! 8.00! 7.00! 6.00! 5.00! 13.00! 12.00! 11.00! 10.00! 9.00! 8.00! 7.00! 6.00! 5.00! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!21!22! Electrode! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12! 13! 14! 15! 16! 17! 18! 19! 20! 21! 22! Electrode! Contour! Slim! Contour(95%CI)! Slim(95%CI)! Contour! Slim! Contour(95%CI)! Slim(95%CI)! 19

Results! Are dynamic ranges different between the two electrode designs?! No significant differences at 95% confidence intervals for any electrodes! 70.00!! 2 nd! visit! Dynamic Range! Contour! 65.00! 60.00! Slim! 55.00! Contour(95%CI)! 50.00! 45.00! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!21!22! Electrode! Slim(95%CI)! 3 to 6 mo visit! Dynamic Range! 70.00! 65.00! 60.00! 55.00! 50.00! 45.00! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!21!22! Electrode! Contour! Slim! Contour(95%CI)! Slim(95%CI)! 20

Results! Are NRTs different between the two electrode designs?! No significant differences at 95% confidence intervals for any electrodes!!! 2 nd visit! NRT! 200.00! 190.00! 180.00! Contour! 170.00! 160.00! Slim! 150.00! 140.00! Contour(95%CI)! 130.00! 120.00! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!21!22! Slim(95%CI)! Electrode! 3 to 6 mo visit! NRT! 200.00! 190.00! 180.00! 170.00! 160.00! 150.00! 140.00! 130.00! 120.00! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!21!22! Electrode! Contour! Slim! Contour(95%CI)! Slim(95%CI)! 21

Conclusions!! Even though there were no significant differences at 95% confidence intervals, there were trends that reflected our clinical impressions and may bear further study.! There is too much variability in programming across patients to generalize (levels needs).! Clinical application: Every patient has to be programmed on an individualized basis. We cannot assume all 422 DRs are narrower across the array, or that all Contour impedances are lower.! 22

Future directions! Speech perception results! Hearing preservation! 23