Suppr超能文献

电耳蜗图引导的蜗周电极回拉技术以改善听力保留

Electrocochleography-Guided Pull-Back Technique of Perimodiolar Electrode for Improved Hearing Preservation.

作者信息

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

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri.

出版信息

Otol Neurotol. 2025 Aug 1;46(7):766-774. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004407. Epub 2025 Jan 22.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

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。

研究设计

前瞻性队列研究。

研究地点

三级转诊中心。

患者

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)。

干预措施

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)。

主要观察指标

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)。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验