Features of processor fitting in patients with different types of cochlear implant electrode array

Introduction. The results of cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss are influenced by many factors, including the type of electrode array. The location of the electrodes in relation to neurons of spiral ganglion affects on levels of perception of the patient's hearing sensations.

Aim. To evaluate the dependence of electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) thresholds values and comfortable levels depends on electrode array type.

Materials and methods. 26 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with cochlear implantation systems were examined. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 1) patients with a straight electrode array (n = 14); 2) patients with a perimodiolar electrode array (n = 12). We tested speech intelligibility and ECAP thresholds. The difference in the values of both parameters was estimated.

Results. For both groups of patients, the relationship between the threshold's profiles of ECAP thresholds and maximum comfortable stimulation levels was detected. For patients from the first group (straight electrode array), the differences in values between the studied parameters were 30.6 ± 6.1%. In patients from the second group, the differences in the values of the thresholds for ECAP thresholds and the levels of comfortable stimulation ranged 2.4 ± 2.1%.

Conclusion. The perimodiolar electrode array is located closer to the neurons of the spiral ganglion, which may explain the greater relationship between the values of the ECAP thresholds and the levels of comfortable stimulation. This pattern must be considered when programming the processor of the cochlear implantation system.

1. Jensen M.J., Isaac H., Hernandez H., Oleson J., Dunn C., Gantz B.J, Hansen M.R. Timing of Acoustic Hearing Changes After Cochlear Implantation. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(10):2036-2043. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29984.

2. Dykes N.A., Pashkov A.V., Petrov S.M. Shchukina A.A. Yanov Yu.K. A modified method for registering the stapedial reflex in implanted patients when setting up a speech processor. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2007;(3):19-21. (In Russ.) Available at: https://entru.org/files/j_rus_LOR_3_2007.pdf.

3. Tavartkiladze G.A., Gvelesiani T.G., Tsygankova E.R., Daikhes N.A., Yablonsky S.V., Pashkov A.V. Early detection and correction of hearing disorders in children of the first years of life. Moscow; 2010. 34 р. (In Russ.)

4. Wanna G.B., Noble J.H., Carlson M.L., Gifford R.H., Dietrich M.S., Haynes D.S. et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(6):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24728.

5. Skarzynski H., Lorens A., Matusiak M., Porowski M., Skarzynski P.H., James C.J. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurootol. 2012;17(2):82-91. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329366.

6. Gstoettner W.K., Adunka O., Franz P., Hamzavi J.Jr, Plenk H.Jr., Susani M. et al. Perimodiolar electrodes in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 2001;121(2):216-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164801300043569.

7. Hughes M.L. A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124(5):2711-2714. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2990710.

8. Shepherd R.K., Hatsushika S., Clark G.M. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res.1993;66(1):108-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(93)90265-3.

9. Klyachko D.S., Pashkov A.V., Gadaleva S.V., Naumova I.V. The electrically evoked compound action potential of the auditory nerve. Literature review. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2018;(4):99-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2018-4-99-120.

10. Parkinson A.J., Arcaroli J., Staller S.J., Arndt P.L., Cosgriff A., Ebinger K. The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results. Ear Hear. 2002;23(1):41-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200202001-00005.

11. Cohen L.T., Saunders E., Clark G.M. Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Hear Res. 2001;155(1-2):63-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(01)00248-9.

12. Hughes M.L., Abbas P.J. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1538-1547. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2164969.

13. Telmesani L.M., Said N.M. Effect of cochlear implant electrode array design on auditory nerve and behavioral response in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(5):660-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.02.008.

14. Browning L.M., Nie Y., Rout A., Heiner M. Audiologists' preferences in programming cochlear implants: A preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020;21(4):179-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2019.1708553.

15. Huang T.C., Reitzen S.D., Marrinan M.S., Waltzman S.B., Roland J.T. Modiolar coiling, electrical thresholds, and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the nucleus contour advance electrode with the advance off stylet technique. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27(2):159-166. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000187047.58544.d0.

16. Gordon K.A., Papsin B.C., Harrison R.V. Activity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2003;24(6):485-500. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000100203.65990.D4.