Postoperative radiography was performed in each subject to confirm that the active electrode occupied an intracochlear position with no complications or abnormal electrode position.
To the authors knowledge there were no neural disorders in either group. Exclusion criteria were cochlear malformations, cochlear otosclerosis, obliterative postmeningitis changes and electrode tip foldover. All subjects were examined with high resolution computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging before surgery. Time periods of the study recruitment were from 13 June 2014 to 14 December 2015 for CI512, from 13 November 2015 to for CI532and 11 March 2015 to 29 November 2016 for CI522.
#Types of retrospective studies series#
Īs a consequence, the authors’ aim in this multicenter study that is to their knowledge the first with this focus was to compare the influence of various electrode designs upon selected electrophysiological outcomes for cochlear implant recipients using the same model of receiver-stimulator, Cochlear™ Nucleus® Profile Series and sound processor in a retrospective study.Ī total of 139 consecutive subjects who were implanted between 13 June 2014 and with a Profile CI532 (CI532), a Profile CI512 (CI512), and a Profile CI522 (CI522) device manufactured by Cochlear Ltd., Australia and gave their informed consent were recruited to this retrospective study from two tertiary referral implant centers. Our center’s postoperative radiological comparative study demonstrated that the Slim Modilar electrode array took a closer position to the modiolus than the Contour Advance electrode array. Recent publications represent imaging and electrophysiological results with CI532, but no comparative studies have yet been published. Hence, to reduce the number of variables, comparison of the influence of electrode designs on outcomes could be interpreted more effectively if a consistent receiver-stimulator design and a common sound processor are used.
Studies in implanted recipient groups using multiple implant types make it difficult to compare the influence of the implant electrode characteristics on outcomes in the presence of additional variables such as implant electronics, sound processors and speech coding paradigms. Proximity to the modiolus, electrical current requirements, energy consumption, trauma to the cochlea, combined electro-acoustic stimulation ), preservation of cochlear structures with low-trauma surgical technique and hearing preservation are important aspects of implant design which have become the focus of many discussions and studies.įor example, recent evidence suggests that speech discrimination is not improved by deep insertion, but it is significantly improved by perimodiolar position of the electrode. straight or pre-curved, full-length or short) and sound processors to choose from, which can facilitate decision making on an individual basis. The manufacturers provide a variety of implant configurations including different receiver-stimulators, electrode arrays (e.g. There are currently different trends in cochlear implant electrode design.
0 kommentar(er)
