High rates of partial insertion have been reported for cochlear implant (CI) recipients of long lateral wall electrode arrays, presumably caused by resistance encountered during insertion due to cochlear morphology. With recent advances in long-electrode array design, we sought to investigate (1) the incidence of complete insertions among patients implanted with 31.5-mm flexible arrays and (2) whether complete insertion is limited by cochlear duct length (CDL).
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Setting
Tertiary referral center.
Methods
Fifty-one adult CI recipients implanted with 31.5-mm flexible lateral wall arrays underwent postoperative computed tomography to determine the rate of complete insertion, defined as all contacts being intracochlear. CDL and angular insertion depth (AID) were compared between complete and partial insertion cohorts.
Results
Most cases had a complete insertion (96.1%, n = 49). Among the complete insertion cohort, the median CDL was 33.6 mm (range, 30.3-37.9 mm), and median AID was 641° (range, 533-751°). Two cases of partial insertion had relatively short CDL (31.8 mm and 32.3 mm) and shallow AID (542° and 575°). Relatively shallow AID for the 2 cases of partial insertion fails to support the idea that CDL alone prevents a complete insertion.
Conclusion
Complete insertion of a 31.5-mm flexible array is feasible in most cases and does not appear to be limited by the range of CDL observed in this cohort. Future studies are needed to estimate other variations in cochlear morphology that could predict resistance and failure to achieve complete insertion with long arrays.
BlameyPArndtPBergeronF, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 1996;1(5):293-306.
2.
BlameyPArtieresFBaskentD, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(1):36-47.
3.
GantzBJWoodworthGGKnutsonJFAbbasPJTylerRS. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1993;102(12):909-916.
4.
LazardDSVincentCVenailF, et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48739.
5.
GreenKMBhattYMawmanDJ, et al. Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2007;8(1):1-11.
6.
O’ConnellBPCakirAHunterJB, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1016-1023.
7.
O’ConnellBPHunterJBHaynesDS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(10):2352-2357.
8.
BuchmanCADillonMTKingERAdunkaMCAdunkaOFPillsburyHC. Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(10):1773-1779.
9.
ChakravortiSNobleJHGiffordRH, et al. Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(5):617-624.
10.
HochmairIArnoldWNoppPJollyCMullerJRolandP. Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003;123(5):612-617.
11.
BuchnerAIllgAMajdaniOLenarzT. Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0174900.
12.
YukawaKCohenLBlameyPPymanBTungvachirakulVO’LearyS. Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurootol. 2004;9(3):163-172.
13.
FinleyCCHoldenTAHoldenLK, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(7):920-928.
14.
HoldenLKFinleyCCFirsztJB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342-360.
15.
GaniMValentiniGSigristAKosMIBoexC. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(1):69-83.
16.
CanfarottaMWO’ConnellBPGiardinaCK, et al. Relationship between electrocochleography, angular insertion depth, and cochlear implant speech perception outcomes [published online December22, 2020]. Ear Hear.
17.
DormanMFLoizouPCRaineyD. Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;102(5, pt 1):2993-2996.
18.
FuQJShannonRV. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 1999;20(4):321-331.
19.
LiTFuQJ. Effects of spectral shifting on speech perception in noise. Hear Res. 2010;270(1-2):81-88.
20.
BaskentDShannonRV. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(4, pt 1):2064-2076.
21.
BaskentDShannonRV. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117(3, pt 1):1405-1416.
22.
CanfarottaMWDillonMTBussEPillsburyHCBrownKDO’ConnellBP. Frequency-to-place mismatch: characterizing variability and the influence on speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear. 2020;41(5):1349-1361.
23.
CanfarottaMWO’ConnellBPBussEPillsburyHCBrownKDDillonMT. Influence of age at cochlear implantation and frequency-to-place mismatch on early speech recognition in adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(6):926-932.
24.
WangJDawantBMLabadieRFNobleJH. Retrospective evaluation of a technique for patient-customized placement of precurved cochlear implant electrode arrays. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157(1):107-112.
25.
CanfarottaMWDillonMTBuchmanCA, et al. Long-term influence of electrode array length on speech recognition in cochlear implant users [published online August1, 2020]. Laryngoscope.
26.
HardyM. The length of the organ of Corti in man. Am J Anat. 1938;63:291-311.
27.
WurfelWLanfermannHLenarzTMajdaniO. Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res. 2014;316:65-72.
28.
MengJLiSZhangFLiQQinZ. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(9):1307-1313.
29.
AvciENauwelaersTLenarzTHamacherVKralA. Variations in microanatomy of the human cochlea. J Comp Neurol. 2014;522(14):3245-3261.
30.
KochRWLadakHMElfarnawanyMAgrawalSK. Measuring cochlear duct length—a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46(1):19.
31.
TimmMEMajdaniOWellerT, et al. Patient specific selection of lateral wall cochlear implant electrodes based on anatomical indication ranges. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0206435.
32.
De SetaDNguyenYBonnardD, et al. The role of electrode placement in bilateral simultaneously cochlear-implanted adult patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(3):485-493.
33.
CanfarottaMWDillonMTBussEPillsburyHCBrownKDO’ConnellBP. Validating a new tablet-based tool in the determination of cochlear implant angular insertion depth. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(8):1006-1010.
34.
VerbistBMSkinnerMWCohenLT, et al. Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(5):722-730.
35.
SchurzigDTimmMEBatsoulisC, et al. A novel method for clinical cochlear duct length estimation toward patient-specific cochlear implant selection. OTO Open. 2018;2(4):2473974X18800238.
36.
AlexiadesGDhanasinghAJollyC. Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(5):904-907.
37.
FishmanKEShannonRVSlatteryWH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(5):1201-1215.
38.
FriesenLMShannonRVBaskentDWangX. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(2):1150-1163.
39.
ShannonRVCruzRJGalvinJJIII. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users’ phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise. Audiol Neurootol. 2011;16(2):113-123.
40.
BergKANobleJHDawantBMDwyerRTLabadieRFGiffordRH. Speech recognition with cochlear implants as a function of the number of channels: effects of electrode placement. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147(5):3646.
41.
JohnstonJDScoffingsDChungM, et al. Computed tomography estimation of cochlear duct length can predict full insertion in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(3):223-228.
42.
StakhovskayaOSridharDBonhamBHLeakePA. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):220-233.
43.
KettenDRSkinnerMWWangGVannierMWGatesGANeelyJG. In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1998;175:1-16.
44.
SkinnerMWKettenDRHoldenLK, et al. CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002;3(3):332-350.
45.
BredbergG. Cellular pattern and nerve supply of the human organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol. 1968;(suppl 236):231+.
46.
SatoHSandoITakahashiH. Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea: computer 3-D measurement. Acta Otolaryngol. 1991;111(6):1037-1040.
47.
PollakAFelixHSchrottA. Methodological aspects of quantitative study of spiral ganglion cells. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1987;436:37-42.
48.
LeeJNadolJBJrEddingtonDK. Depth of electrode insertion and postoperative performance in humans with cochlear implants: a histopathologic study. Audiol Neurootol. 2010;15(5):323-331.
49.
AdunkaOKieferJ. Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135(3):374-382.
50.
RadeloffAMackMBaghiMGstoettnerWKAdunkaOF. Variance of angular insertion depths in free-fitting and perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(2):131-136.
LandsbergerDMMertensGPunteAKVan De HeyningP. Perceptual changes in place of stimulation with long cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;135(2):EL75-EL81.
53.
KalkmanRKBriaireJJDekkerDMFrijnsJH. Place pitch versus electrode location in a realistic computational model of the implanted human cochlea. Hear Res. 2014;315:10-24.
54.
ArnoldnerCRissDBaumgartnerWDKaiderAHamzaviJS. Cochlear implant channel separation and its influence on speech perception—implications for a new electrode design. Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12(5):313-324.
55.
LiHSchart-MorenNRohaniSALadakHMRask-AndersenHAgrawalS. Synchrotron radiation-based reconstruction of the human spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2020;41(1):173-181.
56.
DhanasinghAERajanGvan de HeyningP. Presence of the spiral ganglion cell bodies beyond the basal turn of the human cochlea. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020;21(3):145-152.
57.
HelbigSVan de HeyningPKieferJ, et al. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI(100) implant system using the FLEX(EAS) electrode array. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011;131(6):585-595.
58.
MickPAmoodiHShippD, et al. Hearing preservation with full insertion of the FLEXsoft electrode. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(1):e40-e44.
59.
HollisESCanfarottaMWDillonMT, et al. Initial hearing preservation is correlated with cochlear duct length in fully-inserted long flexible lateral wall arrays. Otol Neurotol.
60.
EscudeBJamesCDeguineOCochardNEterEFraysseB. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11(suppl 1):27-33.
