Differences in the impedance of cochlear implant devices within 24 hours of their implantation
Autoři:
David Po-Yi Lin aff001; Joshua Kuang-Chao Chen aff002; Tao-Hsin Tung aff003; Lieber Po-Hung Li aff001
Působiště autorů:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
aff001; Cochlear Implant Center, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan
aff002; Department of Medical Research and Education, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
aff003; Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
aff004; Institute of Brain Science, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
aff005
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222711
Souhrn
Cochlear implantation is a surgical procedure, which is performed on severely hearing-impaired patients. Impedance field telemetry is commonly used to determine the integrity of the cochlear implant device during and after surgery. At the Department of Otolaryngology, Cheng Hsin General Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan), the cochlear implant devices are switched on within 24 hours of their implantation. In the present study, the impedance changes of Advanced Bionics™ cochlear implant devices were compared with previous studies and other devices. The aim was to confirm previous hypotheses and to explore other potential associated factors that could influence impedance following cochlear implantation. The current study included 12 patients who underwent cochlear implantation at Cheng Hsin General Hospital with Advanced Bionics cochlear implant devices. The cochlear devices were all switched on within 24 hours of their implantation. The impedance was measured and compared across all contact channels of the electrode, both intra-operatively and post-operatively. The intra-operative impedance was compared with the switch-on impedance (within 24 hours of the cochlear implantation); the impedance was notably increased for all contact channels at switch-on. Of the 16 channels examined, 4 channels had a significant increase in impedance between the intra-operative measurement and the switch-on measurement. To the best of our knowledge, the impedance of a cochlear implant device can be affected by the diameter of the electrode, the position of the electrode arrays in the scala tympani, sheath formation and fibrosis surrounding the electrode after implantation and electrical stimulation during or after surgery. When the results of the current study were compared with previous studies, it was found that the impedance changes were opposite to that of Cochlear™ implant devices. This may be explained by the position of the electrode arrays, sheath formation, the blow-out effect and differences in electrical stimulation.
Klíčová slova:
Biology and life sciences – Bioengineering – Biotechnology – Medical devices and equipment – Medical implants – Bionics – Developmental biology – Fibrosis – Anatomy – Head – Ears – Inner ear – Cochlea – Engineering and technology – Medicine and health sciences – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Functional electrical stimulation – Otolaryngological procedures
Zdroje
1. Chen JK-C, Chuang AY-C, Sprinzl GM, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. PloS one. 2013;8(8):e71929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071929 23991008
2. Chen JK-C, Chuang AY-C, Sprinzl GM, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Safety and feasibility of initial frequency mapping within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. Acta oto-laryngologica. 2015;135(6):592–7. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2015.1006335 25724514
3. Hu H-C, Chen JK-C, Tsai C-M, Chen H-Y, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Evolution of impedance field telemetry after one day of activation in cochlear implant recipients. PloS one. 2017;12(3):e0173367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173367 28264044
4. Chen JK-C, Chuang AYC, McMahon C, Hsieh J-C, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Music training improves pitch perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):e793–e800. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3620 20211951
5. Chen JK-C, Hu H-C, Kuo C-L, Li LP-H. “Rounded Insertion” A Useful Cochlear Implantation Technique for Patients with Cochlear Hypoplasia Type I. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. 2016;154(4):771–2. doi: 10.1177/0194599816631514 26932944
6. Su GL, Colesa DJ, Pfingst BE. Effects of deafening and cochlear implantation procedures on postimplantation psychophysical electrical detection thresholds. Hearing research. 2008;241(1–2):64–72. 18558467
7. Newbold C, Richardson R, Huang CQ, Milojevic D, Cowan R, Shepherd R. An in vitro model for investigating impedance changes with cell growth and electrical stimulation: implications for cochlear implants. Journal of neural engineering. 2004;1(4):218. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/1/4/005 15876642
8. Ishai R, Herrmann BS, Nadol JB Jr, Quesnel AM. The pattern and degree of capsular fibrous sheaths surrounding cochlear electrode arrays. Hearing research. 2017;348:44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.02.012 28216124
9. Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden R, Raine C. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta oto-laryngologica. 1998;118(3):313–26. doi: 10.1080/00016489850183386 9655204
10. Agrawal V, Newbold C. Computer modelling of the cochlea and the cochlear implant: a review. Cochlear implants international. 2012;13(2):113–23. doi: 10.1179/1754762811Y.0000000015 22333694
11. Newbold C, Mergen S, Richardson R, Seligman P, Millard R, Cowan R, et al. Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear implants international. 2014;15(4):191–9. doi: 10.1179/1754762813Y.0000000050 23998484
12. Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Cowan RS. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otology & Neurotology. 2005;26(5):948–56.
13. Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hearing research. 2017;356:93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.005 29102129
14. Gazibegovic D, Bero EM. Multicenter surgical experience evaluation on the Mid-Scala electrode and insertion tools. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2017;274(2):1147–51. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4255-3 27515706
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 9
- Proč se v Česku šíří několik „vymýcených“ infekcí najednou? Ptáme se odborníků
- ADHD jako evoluční výhoda? Výzkum se zaměřil na lovce a sběrače
- Není migréna jako migréna: Co pociťují ženy a co muži?
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Graviola (Annona muricata) attenuates behavioural alterations and testicular oxidative stress induced by streptozotocin in diabetic rats
- CH(II), a cerebroprotein hydrolysate, exhibits potential neuro-protective effect on Alzheimer’s disease
- Comparison between Aptima Assays (Hologic) and the Allplex STI Essential Assay (Seegene) for the diagnosis of Sexually transmitted infections
- Assessment of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity using CareStart G6PD rapid diagnostic test and associated genetic variants in Plasmodium vivax malaria endemic setting in Mauritania
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy