Amit Walia, Matthew A Shew, David S Lee, Amanda Ortmann, Jordan Varghese, Shannon Lefler, Nedim Durakovic, Cameron C Wick, Jacques A Herzog, Craig A Buchman
{"title":"耳蜗引导下磨牙周围电极后拉技术改善听力保护。","authors":"Amit Walia, Matthew A Shew, David S Lee, Amanda Ortmann, Jordan Varghese, Shannon Lefler, Nedim Durakovic, Cameron C Wick, Jacques A Herzog, Craig A Buchman","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether electrocochleography (ECochG)-guided pull-back of the perimodiolar electrode improves perimodiolar proximity, hearing preservation (HP), and cochlear implant performance.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>77 adult CI recipients with residual acoustic hearing (low-frequency pure-tone average of 125, 250, 500 Hz; LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Unilateral implantation, comparing conventional insertion (N = 31) with ECochG-guided electrode pull-back (N = 46). The guided method uses active ECochG from the apical electrode during adjustment and post-insertion electrode sweep to identify \"tonotopic response\" (defined as maximum response for 250 Hz at most apical electrode on electrode sweep).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Perimodiolar proximity (wrapping factor on postoperative CT); speech-perception testing (CNC, AzBio in noise +10 dB SNR); and HP at 3 and 6 months post-activation (defined as LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the subjects undergoing ECochG-guided insertion, 36 required pull-back based on lack of tonotopic responses, whereas the remaining 10 exhibited \"optimal responses\" post-insertion, needing no adjustment. Improved perimodiolar proximity was achieved with the ECochG-guided method (mean wrapping factor difference, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.0-9.9). The LFPTA shift was smaller using ECochG-guided pull-back when compared with conventional insertion by 17.0 dB HL (95% CI, 8.3-25.7) and 14.8 dB HL (95% CI, 6.5-23.2) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Forty percent achieved HP using ECochG-guided pull-back versus 27.5% without. There was no difference in CNC scores among both cohorts, but AzBio in noise scores at 6 months was improved in the ECochG-guided pull-back cohort (mean difference, 19.1%; 95% CI, 5.8-32.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ECochG-guided pull-back increased perimodiolar proximity and HP rates. Although there was no difference in speech perception performance in quiet, a significant improvement was noted in noisy conditions, potentially attributable to HP and the utilization of hybrid stimulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":"766-774"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electrocochleography-Guided Pull-Back Technique of Perimodiolar Electrode for Improved Hearing Preservation.\",\"authors\":\"Amit Walia, Matthew A Shew, David S Lee, Amanda Ortmann, Jordan Varghese, Shannon Lefler, Nedim Durakovic, Cameron C Wick, Jacques A Herzog, Craig A Buchman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether electrocochleography (ECochG)-guided pull-back of the perimodiolar electrode improves perimodiolar proximity, hearing preservation (HP), and cochlear implant performance.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>77 adult CI recipients with residual acoustic hearing (low-frequency pure-tone average of 125, 250, 500 Hz; LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Unilateral implantation, comparing conventional insertion (N = 31) with ECochG-guided electrode pull-back (N = 46). The guided method uses active ECochG from the apical electrode during adjustment and post-insertion electrode sweep to identify \\\"tonotopic response\\\" (defined as maximum response for 250 Hz at most apical electrode on electrode sweep).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Perimodiolar proximity (wrapping factor on postoperative CT); speech-perception testing (CNC, AzBio in noise +10 dB SNR); and HP at 3 and 6 months post-activation (defined as LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the subjects undergoing ECochG-guided insertion, 36 required pull-back based on lack of tonotopic responses, whereas the remaining 10 exhibited \\\"optimal responses\\\" post-insertion, needing no adjustment. Improved perimodiolar proximity was achieved with the ECochG-guided method (mean wrapping factor difference, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.0-9.9). The LFPTA shift was smaller using ECochG-guided pull-back when compared with conventional insertion by 17.0 dB HL (95% CI, 8.3-25.7) and 14.8 dB HL (95% CI, 6.5-23.2) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Forty percent achieved HP using ECochG-guided pull-back versus 27.5% without. There was no difference in CNC scores among both cohorts, but AzBio in noise scores at 6 months was improved in the ECochG-guided pull-back cohort (mean difference, 19.1%; 95% CI, 5.8-32.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ECochG-guided pull-back increased perimodiolar proximity and HP rates. Although there was no difference in speech perception performance in quiet, a significant improvement was noted in noisy conditions, potentially attributable to HP and the utilization of hybrid stimulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"766-774\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价耳蜗电图(ECochG)引导下的磨牙周围电极后拉是否能改善磨牙周围的接近性、听力保护(HP)和人工耳蜗的性能。研究设计:前瞻性队列研究。单位:三级转诊中心。患者:77例有残余声学听力的成年CI受者(低频纯音平均125、250、500 Hz;LFPTA≤80db HL)。干预:单侧植入,比较常规置入(N = 31)和ecoecg引导下电极后拉(N = 46)。该方法在调整和插入后电极扫描期间使用来自顶端电极的主动ECochG来识别“张力响应”(定义为电极扫描时最顶端电极250 Hz的最大响应)。主要观察指标:磨牙周接近度(术后CT上的包裹因子);语音感知测试(CNC, AzBio在噪声+10 dB信噪比下);激活后3个月和6个月的HP(定义为LFPTA≤80 dB HL)。结果:在接受ecoecg引导下插入的受试者中,36名因缺乏张力反应而需要拉回,而其余10名在插入后表现出“最佳反应”,无需调整。ecoecg引导方法改善了磨牙周的接近度(平均包裹因子差,6.4;95% ci, 3.0-9.9)。在3个月和6个月时,与常规插入相比,ecoecg引导下的LFPTA移位较小,分别为17.0 dB HL (95% CI, 8.3-25.7)和14.8 dB HL (95% CI, 6.5-23.2)。40%的人使用ecoecg引导下的回拉达到HP,而没有使用的则为27.5%。两组患者的CNC评分无差异,但ecoecg引导下的回拉组患者6个月时噪音评分的AzBio有所改善(平均差异为19.1%;95% ci, 5.8-32.4)。结论:ecoecg引导下的后拉增加了磨牙周接近度和HP率。尽管安静环境下的语音感知表现没有差异,但在嘈杂环境下有显著改善,这可能归因于HP和混合刺激的使用。
Electrocochleography-Guided Pull-Back Technique of Perimodiolar Electrode for Improved Hearing Preservation.
Objective: To evaluate whether electrocochleography (ECochG)-guided pull-back of the perimodiolar electrode improves perimodiolar proximity, hearing preservation (HP), and cochlear implant performance.
Study design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary referral center.
Patients: 77 adult CI recipients with residual acoustic hearing (low-frequency pure-tone average of 125, 250, 500 Hz; LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).
Intervention: Unilateral implantation, comparing conventional insertion (N = 31) with ECochG-guided electrode pull-back (N = 46). The guided method uses active ECochG from the apical electrode during adjustment and post-insertion electrode sweep to identify "tonotopic response" (defined as maximum response for 250 Hz at most apical electrode on electrode sweep).
Main outcome measures: Perimodiolar proximity (wrapping factor on postoperative CT); speech-perception testing (CNC, AzBio in noise +10 dB SNR); and HP at 3 and 6 months post-activation (defined as LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).
Results: Of the subjects undergoing ECochG-guided insertion, 36 required pull-back based on lack of tonotopic responses, whereas the remaining 10 exhibited "optimal responses" post-insertion, needing no adjustment. Improved perimodiolar proximity was achieved with the ECochG-guided method (mean wrapping factor difference, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.0-9.9). The LFPTA shift was smaller using ECochG-guided pull-back when compared with conventional insertion by 17.0 dB HL (95% CI, 8.3-25.7) and 14.8 dB HL (95% CI, 6.5-23.2) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Forty percent achieved HP using ECochG-guided pull-back versus 27.5% without. There was no difference in CNC scores among both cohorts, but AzBio in noise scores at 6 months was improved in the ECochG-guided pull-back cohort (mean difference, 19.1%; 95% CI, 5.8-32.4).
Conclusions: ECochG-guided pull-back increased perimodiolar proximity and HP rates. Although there was no difference in speech perception performance in quiet, a significant improvement was noted in noisy conditions, potentially attributable to HP and the utilization of hybrid stimulation.
期刊介绍:
Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.