These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dynamic Behavior and Insertional Forces of a Precurved Electrode Using the Pull-Back Technique in a Fresh Microdissected Cochlea.
    Author: Smetak MR, Riojas KE, Whittenbarger N, Noble JH, Labadie RF.
    Journal: Otol Neurotol; 2023 Apr 01; 44(4):324-330. PubMed ID: 36728107.
    Abstract:
    HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluated the utility of the pull-back technique in improving perimodiolar positioning of a precurved cochlear implant (CI) electrode array (EA) with simultaneous insertion force profile measurement and direct observation of dynamic EA behavior. BACKGROUND: Precurved EAs with perimodiolar positioning have improved outcomes compared with straight EAs because of lowered charge requirements for stimulation and decreased spread of excitation. The safety and efficacy of the pull-back technique in further improving perimodiolar positioning and its associated force profile have not been adequately demonstrated. METHODS: The bone overlying the scala vestibuli was removed in 15 fresh cadaveric temporal bones, leaving the scala tympani unviolated. Robotic insertions of EAs were performed with simultaneous force measurement and video recording. Force profiles were obtained during standard insertion, overinsertion, and pull-back. Postinsertion CT scans were obtained during each of the three conditions, enabling automatic segmentation and calculation of angular insertion depth, mean perimodiolar distance ( Mavg ), and cochlear duct length. RESULTS: Overinsertion did not result in significantly higher peak forces than standard insertion (mean [SD], 0.18 [0.06] and 0.14 [0.08] N; p = 0.18). Six temporal bones (40%) demonstrated visibly improved perimodiolar positioning after the protocol, whereas none worsened. Mavg significantly improved after the pull-back technique compared with standard insertion (mean [SD], 0.34 [0.07] and 0.41 [0.10] mm; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The pull-back technique was not associated with significantly higher insertional forces compared with standard insertion. This technique was associated with significant improvement in perimodiolar positioning, both visually and quantitatively, independent of cochlear size.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]