Walia Amit, Shew Matthew A, Lee David S, Ortmann Amanda, Varghese Jordan, Lefler Shannon, Durakovic Nedim, Wick Cameron C, Herzog Jacques A, Buchman Craig A
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Otol Neurotol. 2025 Aug 1;46(7):766-774. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407. Epub 2025 Jan 22.
To evaluate whether electrocochleography (ECochG)-guided pull-back of the perimodiolar electrode improves perimodiolar proximity, hearing preservation (HP), and cochlear implant performance.
Prospective cohort study.
Tertiary referral center.
77 adult CI recipients with residual acoustic hearing (low-frequency pure-tone average of 125, 250, 500 Hz; LFPTA ≤80 dB HL).
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).
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).
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).
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.
评估耳蜗电图(ECochG)引导下将蜗轴周围电极回拉是否能改善电极与蜗轴的接近程度、听力保留(HP)以及人工耳蜗的性能。
前瞻性队列研究。
三级转诊中心。
77名有残余听力的成年人工耳蜗植入者(低频纯音平均听阈,125、250、500Hz;LFPTA≤80dB HL)。
单侧植入,比较传统插入法(N = 31)与ECochG引导下电极回拉法(N = 46)。引导方法是在调整过程中以及插入后电极扫描时,利用顶端电极的主动ECochG来识别“音调定位反应”(定义为电极扫描时最顶端电极对250Hz的最大反应)。
电极与蜗轴的接近程度(术后CT上的包裹因子);言语感知测试(CNC、噪声环境下AzBio +10dB SNR);以及开机后3个月和6个月时的听力保留情况(定义为LFPTA≤80dB HL)。
在接受ECochG引导插入的受试者中,36人因缺乏音调定位反应而需要回拉,其余10人在插入后表现出“最佳反应”,无需调整。ECochG引导法实现了更好的电极与蜗轴接近程度(平均包裹因子差异为6.4;95%CI,3.0 - 9.9)。与传统插入法相比,ECochG引导下的回拉在3个月和6个月时LFPTA的变化分别小17.0dB HL(95%CI,8.3 - 25.7)和14.8dB HL(95%CI,6.5 - 23.2)。使用ECochG引导下的回拉有40%的人实现了听力保留,而未使用该方法的比例为27.5%。两组的CNC得分没有差异,但在ECochG引导下的回拉组中,6个月时AzBio在噪声环境下的得分有所提高(平均差异为19.1%;95%CI,5.8 - 32.4)。
ECochG引导下的回拉增加了电极与蜗轴的接近程度和听力保留率。虽然在安静环境下言语感知性能没有差异,但在噪声环境下有显著改善,这可能归因于听力保留和混合刺激的利用。