[en] [en] INTRODUCTION: Slim perimodiolar electrodes (PSEs) are designed for close modiolar proximity, but deviations from ideal placement may affect speech perception. This study investigates the prevalence, radiologic characteristics, and audiologic outcomes of abnormally positioned PSE arrays and proposes intraoperative management strategies.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 239 adults implanted with Cochlear® PSE arrays (2015-2023). Postoperative CT scan identified arrays positioned laterally to mid-scala without tip fold-over. Objective metrics such as angular insertion depth (AID), intracochlear position index (ICPI), wrapping factor (WF), and maximum insertion angle were compared to a control group with normal positioning (n = 52). Speech perception outcomes at 3 and 12 months were assessed using monosyllabic word tests and compared to a reference cohort (n = 1,414).
RESULTS: Abnormal positioning occurred in 3% (n = 7). All arrays remained within scala tympani but had shallower insertions (AID 296° vs. 392°), greater lateralization (ICPI 0.52 vs. 0.33), and higher WF (0.62 vs. 0.36). Compared to controls, speech scores were lower at 3 months (33% vs. 65%) and 12 months (45% vs. 74%). Intraoperative X-rays did not detect these deviations.
CONCLUSION: Abnormal PSE placement is uncommon but associated with poorer speech outcomes. Surgeons should assess electrode shape intraoperatively and consider reinsertion if the classic curl is absent. Postoperative CT remains critical for quality assurance. Tailored intraoperative strategies are needed to prevent lateralization and optimize outcomes.
Disciplines :
Otolaryngology
Author, co-author :
Ramos, Phoebe Helena; Department of Otolaryngology of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, phoeberamos@gmail.com ; Department of Otolaryngology of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, phoeberamos@gmail.com ; Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, phoeberamos@gmail.com
Collins, Aaron; Department of Otolaryngology of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Gerard, Jean-Marc; Department of Otolaryngology of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Gersdorff, Guillaume ; Université de Liège - ULiège > GIGA ; Department of Otolaryngology of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Language :
English
Title :
Assessing the Significance of Abnormal Inserted Perimodiolar Slim Electrodes: Perception and Management Strategies.
1. Gomez Serrano M, Patel S, Harris R, Selvadurai D. Initial surgical and clinical experience with the Nucleus CI532 slim modiolar electrode in the UK. Cochlear Implants Int. 2019;20(4):207–16.
2. Chakravorti S, Noble JH, Gifford RH, Dawant BM, O’Connell BP, Wang J, et al. Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(5):617–24.
3. Heutink F, Verbist BM, Van Der Woude W-J, Meulman TJ, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM, et al. Factors influencing speech perception in adults with a cochlear implant. EAR Hear. 2021:42(4):949–60.
4. Perkins EL, Labadie RF, O’Malley M, Bennett M, Noble JH, Haynes DS, et al. The relation of cochlear implant electrode array type and position on continued hearing preservation. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(6):E634–40.
5. Heutink F, De Rijk SR, Verbist BM, Huinck WJ, Mylanus EAM. Angular electrode insertion depth and speech perception in adults with a cochlear implant: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):900–10.
6. Ishiyama A, Risi F, Boyd P. Potential insertion complications with cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020;21(4):206–19.
7. O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, Francis DO, Noble JH, Labadie RF, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. In: Otology and neurotology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2016; p. 1016–23.
9. Heutink F, Verbist BM, Mens LHM, Huinck WJ, Mylanus EAM. The evaluation of a slim perimodiolar electrode: surgical technique in relation to intracochlear position and cochlear implant outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(2):343–50.
10. Durakovic N, Kallogjeri D, Wick CC, McJunkin JL, Buchman CA, Herzog J. Immediate and 1-year outcomes with a slim modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(5):731–6.
11. Collins A, Foghsgaard S, Druce E, Margani V, Mejia O, O’Leary S. The effect of electrode position on behavioral and electrophysiologic measurements in perimodiolar cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2024;45(3):238–44.
12. Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, Whiting BR, Chole RA, Neely GJ, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(7):920–8.
13. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342–60.
14. De Miguel ÁR, Durmo I, González JCF, Barreiro SB, Macías AR. Evaluation of intracochlear position of a slim modiolar electrode array, by using different radiological analyses. Otology and Neurotology. 2019;40(4):S10–7.
15. Labadie RF, Schefano AD, Holder JT, Dwyer RT, Rivas A, O’Malley MR, et al. Use of intraoperative CT scanning for quality control assessment of cochlear implant electrode array placement. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020;140(3):206–11.
16. Canfarotta MW, O’Connell BP, Giardina CK, Buss E, Brown KD, Dillon MT, et al. Relationship between electrocochleography, angular insertion depth, and cochlear implant speech perception outcomes. Ear Hear. 2021;42(4):941–8.
17. Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O’Connell BP. Frequency-to-place mismatch: characterizing variability and the influence on speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear. 2020;41(5):1349–61.
18. Giardina CK, Canfarotta MW, Thompson NJ, Fitzpatrick DC, Hodge SE, Baker J, et al. Assessing cochlear implant insertion angle from an intraoperative X-ray using a rotating 3D helical scala tympani model. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(6):e686–94.
19. Holden LK, Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Uchanski RM, Dwyer NY, Holden TA. Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implant recipients implanted with a perimodiolar electrode array located in scala tympani. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(10):1662–8.
20. Schraivogel S, Aebischer P, Wagner F, Weder S, Mantokoudis G, Caversaccio M, et al. Postoperative impedance-based estimation of cochlear implant electrode insertion depth. Ear Hear. 2023;44(6):1379–88.
21. Fernandes V, Wang Y, Yeung R, Symons S, Lin V. Effectiveness of skull X-RAY to determine cochlear implant insertion depth. J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2018;47(1):50.
22. Page JC, Cox MD, Hollowoa B, Bonilla-Velez J, Trinidade A, Dornhoffer JL. Trends in intraoperative testing during cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(3):294–8.
23. Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):220–33.
24. Sridhar D, Stakhovskaya O, Leake PA. A frequency-position function for the human cochlear spiral ganglion.
25. Noble AR, Christianson E, Norton SJ, Ou HC, Phillips GS, Khalatbari H, et al. Reliability of measuring insertion depth in cochlear implanted infants and children using cochlear view radiography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(4):822–8.
27. Ketterer MC, Aschendorff A, Arndt S, Beck R. Electrode array design determines scalar position, dislocation rate and angle and postoperative speech perception. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(9):4257–67.
28. Pietsch M, Schurzig D, Salcher R, Warnecke A, Erfurt P, Lenarz T, et al. Variations in microanatomy of the human modiolus require individualized cochlear implantation. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5047.
29. Khan MMR, Labadie RF, Noble JH. Preoperative prediction of angular insertion depth of lateral wall cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Med Imaging. 2020;7(3):031504.
