Electrically evoked compound action potentials are associated with the site of intracochlear stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Objective measurements to predict the position of a cochlear electrode during cochlear implantation surgery may serve to improve the surgical technique and postoperative speech outcome. There is evidence that electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAP) are a suitable approach to provide information about the site of stimulation. This study aims to contribute to the knowledge about the association between the intraoperative intracochlear ECAP characteristics and the site of stimulation. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing cochlear implant surgery with flexible lateral wall electrode arrays (12 stimulating channels) between 2020 and 2022 were analyzed. The CDL was measured using a CT-based clinical planning software. ECAP were measured for all electrode contacts and associated to the CDL as well as to the site of stimulation in degree. RESULTS: Significant differences among the amplitudes and slopes for the individual stimulated electrode contacts at the stimulation sites of 90°, 180°, 270°, 360°, 450° and 540° were found. The values showed a trend for linearity among the single electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: ECAP characteristics correlate with the electrode's position inside the cochlea. In the future, ECAP may be applied to assess the intracochlear position inside the cochlea and support anatomy-based fitting.

Comparing linear and non-linear models to estimate the appropriate cochlear implant electrode array length-are current methods precise enough?

PURPOSE: In cochlear implantation with flexible lateral wall electrode arrays, a cochlear coverage (CC) range between 70% and 80% is considered ideal for optimal speech perception. To achieve this CC, the cochlear implant (CI) electrode array has to be chosen according to the individual cochlear duct length (CDL). Here, we mathematically analyzed the suitability of different flexible lateral wall electrode array lengths covering between 70% and 80% of the CDL. METHODS: In a retrospective cross-sectional study preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) from patients undergoing cochlear implantation was investigated. The CDL was estimated using an otosurgical planning software and the CI electrode array lengths covering 70-80% of the CDL was calculated using (i) linear and (ii) non-linear models. RESULTS: The analysis of 120 HRCT data sets showed significantly different model-dependent CDL. Significant differences between the CC of 70% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 2.5 mm, p < 0.001) and the CC of 80% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 1.5 mm, p < 0.001) were found. In up to 25% of the patients none of the existing flexible lateral wall electrode arrays fit into this range. In 59 cases (49,2%) the models did not agree on the suitable electrode arrays. CONCLUSIONS: The CC varies depending on the underlying CDL approximation, which critically influences electrode array choice. Based on the literature, we hypothesize that the non-linear method systematically overestimates the CC and may lead to rather too short electrode array choices. Future studies need to assess the accuracy of the individual mathematical models.

Internal auditory canal volume in normal and malformed inner ears.

PURPOSE: A narrow bony internal auditory canal (IAC) may be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and poorer hearing performances after cochlear implantation. However, definitions for a narrow IAC vary widely and commonly, qualitative grading or two-dimensional measures are used to characterize a narrow IAC. We aimed to refine the definition of a narrow IAC by determining IAC volume in both control patients and patients with inner ear malformations (IEMs). METHODS: In this multicentric study, we included high-resolution CT (HRCT) scans of 128 temporal bones (85 with IEMs: cochlear aplasia, n = 11; common cavity, n = 2; cochlear hypoplasia type, n = 19; incomplete partition type I/III, n = 8/8; Mondini malformation, n = 16; enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome, n = 19; 45 controls). The IAC diameter was measured in the axial plane and the IAC volume was measured by semi-automatic segmentation and three-dimensional reconstruction. RESULTS: In controls, the mean IAC diameter was 5.5 mm (SD 1.1 mm) and the mean IAC volume was 175.3 mm3 (SD 52.6 mm3). Statistically significant differences in IAC volumes were found in cochlear aplasia (68.3 mm3, p < 0.0001), IPI (107.4 mm3, p = 0.04), and IPIII (277.5 mm3, p = 0.0004 mm3). Inter-rater reliability was higher in IAC volume than in IAC diameter (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92 vs. 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric measurement of IAC in cases of IEMs reduces measurement variability and may add to classifying IEMs. Since a hypoplastic IAC can be associated with a hypoplastic cochlear nerve and sensorineural hearing loss, radiologic assessment of the IAC is crucial in patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation.

Volumetry improves the assessment of the vestibular aqueduct size in inner ear malformation.

OBJECTIVES: Enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) is a common finding associated with inner ear malformations (IEM). However, uniform radiologic definitions for EVA are missing and various 2D-measurement methods to define EVA have been reported. This study evaluates VA volume in different types of IEM and compares 3D-reconstructed VA volume to 2D-measurements. METHODS: A total of 98 high-resolution CT (HRCT) data sets from temporal bones were analyzed (56 with IEM; [cochlear hypoplasia (CH; n = 18), incomplete partition type I (IPI; n = 12) and type II (IPII; n = 11) and EVA (n = 15)]; 42 controls). VA diameter was measured in axial images. VA volume was analyzed by software-based, semi-automatic segmentation and 3D-reconstruction. Differences in VA volume between the groups and associations between VA volume and VA diameter were assessed. Inter-rater-reliability (IRR) was assessed using the intra-class-correlation-coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Larger VA volumes were found in IEM compared to controls. Significant differences in VA volume between patients with EVA and controls (p < 0.001) as well as between IPII and controls (p < 0.001) were found. VA diameter at the midpoint (VA midpoint) and at the operculum (VA operculum) correlated to VA volume in IPI (VA midpoint: r = 0.78, VA operculum: r = 0.91), in CH (VA midpoint: r = 0.59, VA operculum: r = 0.61), in EVA (VA midpoint: r = 0.55, VA operculum: r = 0.66) and in controls (VA midpoint: r = 0.36, VA operculum: r = 0.42). The highest IRR was found for VA volume (ICC = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The VA diameter may be an insufficient estimate of VA volume, since (1) measurement of VA diameter does not reliably correlate with VA volume and (2) VA diameter shows a lower IRR than VA volume. 3D-reconstruction and VA volumetry may add information in diagnosing EVA in cases with or without additional IEM.

Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth on Speech Perception Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The suitable electrode array choice is broadly discussed in cochlear implantation surgery. Whether to use a shorter electrode length under the aim of structure preservation versus choosing a longer array to achieve a greater cochlear coverage is a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to identify the impact of the insertion depth of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array on CI users' speech perception outcomes. Databases Reviewed: PubMed was searched for English-language articles that were published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1997 to 2022. Methods: A systematic electronic search of the literature was carried out using PubMed to find relevant literature on the impact of insertion depth on speech perception. The review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines of reporting. Studies in both, children and adults with pre- or postlingual hearing loss, implanted with a CI were included in this study. Articles written in languages other than English, literature reviews, meta-analyses, animal studies, histopathological studies, or studies pertaining exclusively to imaging modalities without reporting correlations between insertion depth and speech outcomes were excluded. The risk of bias was determined using the "Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions" tool. Articles were extracted by 2 authors independently using predefined search terms. The titles and abstracts were screened manually to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria. The extracted information included: the study population, type of hearing loss, outcomes reported, devices used, speech perception outcomes, insertion depth (linear insertion depth and/or the angular insertion depth), and correlation between insertion depth and the speech perception outcomes. Results: A total of 215 relevant studies were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed further. Seven studies found no significant correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Fifteen found either a significant positive correlation or a positive effect between insertion depth and speech perception. Only 1 study found a significant negative correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Conclusion: Although most studies reported a positive effect of insertion depth on speech perception outcomes, one-third of the identified studies reported no correlation. Thus, the insertion depth must be considered as a contributing factor to speech perception rather than as a major decisive criterion. Registration: This review has been registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021257547), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.