Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes Using Stimulation-Current- Induced Non-Stimulating Electrode Voltage Recordings With Different Electrode Designs.
Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes Using Stimulation-Current- Induced Non-Stimulating Electrode Voltage Recordings With Different Electrode Designs.
复制标题
使用不同电极设计的刺激电流感应非刺激电极电压记录检测耳蜗外电极。
DOI：
10.1097/mao.0000000000003512
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
De Rijk SR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
De Rijk SR
背景：耳蜗外电极 (EE) 发生在 9% 至 13% 的耳蜗植入中，并且通常在不进行成像的情况下被忽视。位于耳蜗外的电极阵列上的电极与非听觉刺激和言语结果的减少有关。我们之前已经证明 SCINSEV 可以利用来自一家制造商的硬件和软件来检测 EE。在这里，我们测试了对其他制造商的普遍性。方法：将新鲜冰冻的人体头部植入科利耳有限公司的CI522（CI-A）和MED-EL的FLEX24（CI-B）电极。使用 Cochlear Ltd. 研究定制声音软件（跨阻抗矩阵）和 MED-EL 的临床 MAESTRO（阻抗场遥测）测量接触阻抗和 SCIN-SEV，以实现空气、盐水和软组织中的完全插入和 EE。针对这些植入物优化并测试了自动检测工具。收集了 6 名患者的术中带有 EE 的 SCINSEV 用于临床目的。结果：即使 EE 上的接触阻抗较低，从耳蜗内电极到耳蜗外电极的过渡区 SCINSEV 的模式也发生了变化。尸体标本中的自动检测（盐水或软组织中有两个或多个 EE）显示 CI-A 的平均灵敏度和特异性为 91%，CI-B 的灵敏度和特异性为 100%。 EE 的量化显示，CI-A 的估计 EE 与实际 EE 之间存在显着相关性，r= 0.69，CI-B 的 r= 0.76。 结论：尽管电极阵列设计和测量软件存在差异，SCINSEV 检测耳蜗外电极的适用性可以扩展到其他人工耳蜗植入公司。
Background:Extracochlear electrodes (EEs) occur in 9 to 13% of cochlear implantations and commonly go unnoticed without imaging. Electrodes on the electrode array located extracochlearly are associated with non-auditory stimulation and a decrease in speech outcomes. We have previously shown that SCINSEVs, with hardware and software from one manufacturer, could detect EEs. Here, we test the generalizability to other manufacturers.Methods:Fresh-frozen human cadaveric heads were implanted with Cochlear Ltd. CI522 (CI-A) and MED-EL's FLEX24 (CI-B) electrodes. Contact impedances and SCIN-SEVs were measured, with Cochlear Ltd. research Custom Sound software (Transimpedance Matrix) and MED-EL's clinical MAESTRO (Impedance Field Telemetry), for full insertion and EEs in air, saline and soft tissue. An automated detection tool was optimized and tested for these implants. Intra-operative SCINSEVs with EEs were collected for clinical purposes for six patients.Results:The pattern of SCINSEVs changed in the transition zone from intracochlear to extracochlear electrodes, even with low contact impedances on EEs. Automated detection in the cadaveric specimens, with two or more EEs in saline or soft tissue, showed a mean 91% sensitivity and specificity for CI-A and 100% sensitivity and specificity for CI-B. Quantification of EEs showed significant correlations of r= 0.69 between estimated and actual EEs for CI-A and r= 0.76 for CI-B.Conclusion:The applicability of SCINSEVs to detect extra-cochlear electrodes could be expanded to other cochlear implant companies despite differences in electrode array design and measurement software.