|
KMID : 0361020210640040223
|
|
Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2021 Volume.64 No. 4 p.223 ~ p.231
|
|
|
Short-Term Experience in Cochlear Implantation with Slim Modiolar Electrode Array (CI532): Comparison to Previous Devices
|
|
Park Jin-Taek
Kwak Min-Young
Kim Yeh-Ree
Lee Jee-Yeon
Kang Woo-Seok
Ahn Joong-Ho
Chung Jong-Woo
Park Hong-Ju
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Background and Objectives : There have been no reports in Korea regarding cochlear implantsurgeries using Cochlear Nucleus Profile Slim Modiolar electrode [CI532 (Cochlear Ltd.)],as it has been recently released in Korea. We aimed to investigate the short-term results of CI532and compare them with previous devices with perimodiolar or straight electrodes arrays fromthe same manufacturer.
Subjects and Method : From August 2018 to July 2019, 52 patients (26 adults; 26 children)who underwent cochlear implantation of CI532 were included. The intraoperative impedanceand evoked compound action potential (ECAP) threshold in each electrode were analyzed andcompared with the devices with a perimodiolar electrode array [Contour Advance® (CochlearLtd.)] and a lateral wall electrode array [CI422 and CI522 (Cochlear Ltd.)]. Postoperative changesof hearing thresholds at each frequency (250, 500, and 1000 Hz) and aided word recognitionscores (WRS) were also compared.
Results : CI532 showed significantly lower intraoperative impedance in the basal regionscompared to the lateral wall electrode array. The ECAP thresholds of CI532 in the apical electrodeswere significantly lower than that in the other two groups. After implantation, CI532showed a significant preservation of hearing thresholds at most frequencies and showed significantlyhigher preservation rates than the other electrodes. However, there was no differencebetween the three groups regarding the postoperative short-term aided WRS.
Conclusion : CI532 showed lower intraoperative impedances and ECAP thresholds, and bettershort-term hearing preservation outcomes compared to the other electrodes, suggesting thatCI532 electrode might be a better option with less traumatic insertion. However, there was nosignificant difference in the aided WRS, and further studies with a longer follow-up are necessaryto examine the difference of audiologic outcomes.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Cochlear implant, Deafness, Electrodes, Hearing loss, Perception, Speech
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|
|