Cochlear Implants for Patients With Common Cavity Deformities and the Impact of Electrode Positioning

Bae, Seong Hoon; Choi, Jihoon; Choi, Jae Young

doi:10.21053/ceo.2021.00745

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The characteristics of all the included studies are outlined in Table 2 (5,12,14–16,22–54). All 38 studies were descriptive cohort studies without control (55).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meningitis Risk in Patients with Inner Ear Malformations after Cochlear Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this study is to determine the rate of postoperative meningitis after cochlear implantation in those with inner ear malformations (IEMs) via meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Methods This study was reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Proportion meta-analysis was conducted through an inverse variance random-effect model based on arcsin transformation and presented as forest plots. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed through the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool. Results Overall, 38 of 2966 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. There were 10 cases of meningitis after cochlear implantation in 1300 malformed ears. The overall rate of meningitis after cochlear implantation in IEMs was 0.12% (95% confidence interval, 0.006–0.380%; I 2 = 0%). Cases occurred in incomplete partition (n = 5), Mondini deformity (n = 2), common cavity (n = 2), and enlarged internal auditory canal (n = 1). Six of 10 cases of postoperative meningitis occurred with an intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak. Conclusion In those with IEMs, the risk of meningitis after cochlear implantation is very low.

show abstract

“…The characteristics of all the included studies are outlined in Table 2 (5,12,14–16,22–54). All 38 studies were descriptive cohort studies without control (55).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meningitis Risk in Patients with Inner Ear Malformations after Cochlear Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the post-operative outcome of CCD patients is also related to cerebrospinal fluid gusher, partial electrode insertion, and fewer active electrodes and the contact of the electrode with the inner wall ( Dettman et al, 2011 ; Bae et al, 2022 ). The present study explored the relationship of post-operative outcomes with the degree of inner ear development in these patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Long-Term Cochlear Implantation Outcomes and Correlation With Imaging Characteristics in Patients With Common Cavity Deformity

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectTo investigate the long-term development of auditory and speech in patients with common cavity deformity (CCD) after cochlear implantation (CI) and its relationship to imaging characteristics.MethodsTwenty-three CCD patients and 59 age- and sex-matched CI children with normal inner ear structure were recruited. The auditory and speech development of these two groups were evaluated at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after CI activation using four parent reports questionnaires [Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR), Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale/Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS/ITMAIS), and Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS)]. Computed tomography-based 3-dimensional reconstruction of the surgical side of 18 CCD children was performed, the volume and surface area were calculated. Correlation analysis was performed on the imaging performance and post-operative outcomes.ResultsThe percentages of MAIS/IT-MAIS scores and CAP scores at different evaluation time points are significantly different (p < 0.05). When comparing SIR results across time points, significant growth was observed in most of the comparisons. In addition, significant differences (p < 0.05) are observed among the percentages of MUSS scores at different time points except the comparison between 0 and 1 month after CI activation. Patients in the CCD group had poorer auditory and speech performances at different stages after CI compared with those in the control group. According to the reconstruction of CCD patients, the volume ranged from 12.21 to 291.96 mm3; the surface area ranged from 27.81 to 284.7 mm2. When the lumen surface area was <190.45 mm2 or the volume was <157.91 mm3, the survival time for CCD children to achieve a CAP score of 4 after CI was significantly shorter.ConclusionCochlear implantation are less effective in CCD patients than in patients with normal inner ear structures, but they can still achieve significant improvement post-operatively. The morphology and size of the inner ear vary in CCD patients, which reflects the degree of inner ear development influences the outcome after CI surgery.

show abstract

“…During CI surgery for CC/CADV, the electrode should be inserted in a way that enables maximum contact of the CI electrode with the inner wall of the cavity [ 30 , 31 ]. In a previous study, a lower maximum comfortable level and better behavioral outcomes were related to a shorter distance between the inner wall of the CC/CADV cavity and the electrode [ 90 ].…”

Section: In Common Cavity or Cochlear Aplasia With Dilated Vestibule:...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision Medicine Approach to Cochlear Implantation

Kim

Choi

2022

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the early days of cochlear implantation (CI) surgery when the types of electrodes were limited and the etiology of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) was not well understood, the one-size-fits-all approach to CI held true like all other fields. However, in the era of personalized medicine, there have been attempts to associate CI performance with etiology of SNHL and to establish customized surgical techniques that can maximize performance according to individual cochlear dimensions. Personalized genomic-driven assessment of CI candidates and better understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations could provide clinically applicable diagnostic and prognostic information about questions such as who, how, and when to implant. Rigorous and strategic imaging assessments also provide a better insight into anatomic etiology of SNHL and cochlear dimensions, leading to individualized surgical techniques to augment CI outcome. Further, precision medicine approach to CI is not necessarily limited to preoperative planning but can be extended to either intraoperative electrode positioning or even decision of a timing of initial switch-on. In this review, we will discuss the implications of personalized diagnosis (both genetic and nongenetic) on planning and performance of CI in prelingual and postlingual SNHL.

show abstract

Cochlear Implants for Patients With Common Cavity Deformities and the Impact of Electrode Positioning

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Meningitis Risk in Patients with Inner Ear Malformations after Cochlear Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Meningitis Risk in Patients with Inner Ear Malformations after Cochlear Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Analysis of Long-Term Cochlear Implantation Outcomes and Correlation With Imaging Characteristics in Patients With Common Cavity Deformity

Precision Medicine Approach to Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About