Force and pressure measurements in temporal bones

Some cochlear implant (CI) patients lose their residual hearing during surgery. Two factors that might play a role in residual hearing loss are the change in intracochlear hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall during electrode insertion. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of otolaryngology 2021-03, Vol.42 (2), p.102859-102859, Article 102859
Main Authors: Snels, Chantal, Roland, John Thomas, Treaba, Claudiu, Jethanamest, Daniel, Huinck, Wendy, Friedmann, David R., Dhooge, Ingeborg, Mylanus, Emmanuel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bones
Cochlea
Cochlear implantation
Cochlear implants
Ears & hearing
Electrodes
Experiments
Force on cochlear wall
Hearing
Hearing loss
Hearing preservation
Hydraulic intracochlear pressure
Hydraulic pressure
Hydraulics
Inner ear
Insertion
Pressure
Regression analysis
Sensors
Surgery
Temporal bones
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Some cochlear implant (CI) patients lose their residual hearing during surgery. Two factors that might play a role in residual hearing loss are the change in intracochlear hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall during electrode insertion. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a difference in peak hydraulic pressure and peak force on the cochlear wall exists during a CI electrode insertion with different insertion techniques. Twenty fresh frozen temporal bones were used. Hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall were recorded during straight electrode insertions with 1) slow versus fast insertion speed, 2) manual versus automatic insertion method and 3) round window approach (RWA) versus extended RWA (ERWA). When inserting with a slow compared to a fast insertion speed, the peak hydraulic pressure is 239% (95% CI: 130–399%) higher with a RWA and 58% (95% CI: 6–137%) higher with an ERWA. However, the peak force on the cochlear wall is a factor 29% less (95% CI: 13–43%) with a slow insertion speed. No effect was found of opening and insertion method. As contradictory findings were found for hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall on insertion speed, it remains unclear which insertion speed (slow versus fast) is less traumatic to inner ear structure.
ISSN:0196-0709
1532-818X
DOI:10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102859