Existe diferença na dispersão de excitação ao longo da cóclea?
Is there a difference in the spread of excitation at different electrode locations along the cochlea?
Georgea Espindola Ribeiro; Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães; Maria Valéria Schmidt Goffi Gomez; Carolina Gianzantti da Costa; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Rubens Vuono de Brito Neto
Resumo
Objetivo: Identificar se existem diferenças na amplitude e largura da dispersão da excitação (spread of excitation - SOE) nas regiões apical, medial e basal da cóclea. Método: Estudo retrospectivo de corte transversal aprovado pela comissão de ética da instituição. Foram incluídos no estudo, adultos com surdez pós-lingual, submetidos ao implante coclear (IC), com presença de respostas neurais intraoperatórias, nos quais a SOE foi investigada em eletrodos representando as regiões basal (6), medial (11) e apical (16) da cóclea. Limiares da resposta neural, amplitudes de pico (µv) e largura da SOE em milímetros foram coletados e agrupados pelo modelo de feixe de eletrodos para análise pelos testes de Mann Whitney e Kruskal Wallis. Resultados: Foram selecionados 71 indivíduos, 27 implantados com feixe perimodiolar e 44 com feixe reto. Não houve diferenças significantes nos limiares da resposta neural e nas amplitudes do pico entre os eletrodos avaliados em ambos os grupos. Porém, a largura da SOE do eletrodo medial foi significantemente maior em ambos os feixes, seguida pela largura do eletrodo basal. Conclusão: Apesar da amplitude da SOE ser semelhante entre os diferentes locais ao longo do feixe de eletrodos, sugerindo recrutamento de populações neurais similares nas diferentes regiões da cóclea, foi encontrada maior dispersão de excitação na região medial mesmo nos eletrodos perimodiolares. Assim, o uso de testes objetivos será cada vez mais importante para auxiliar no mapeamento do IC, visando uma programação mais eficaz e individualizada.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Purpose: To identify whether there are differences in the amplitude and width of spread of excitation (SOE) across the apical, medial and basal regions of the cochlea. Methods: Cross-sectional retrospective study approved by the Ethics Committee of the institution. The study included adults with postlingual deafness, undergoing cochlear implant (CI) surgery, with present intraoperative neural responses in which the SOE was investigated in the basal (6), medial (11) and apical (16) electrodes. Neural response telemetry thresholds, peak amplitudes (µv) of the SOE function and SOE width in millimeters were collected and grouped by the electrode array type for analysis using the Mann Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests. Results: Seventy-one subjects were selected, 27 with perimodiolar array and 44 with straight array. There were no significant differences in the peak amplitudes among evaluated electrodes in both groups. However, SOE width (mm) of the medial electrode was significantly wider in both arrays, followed by the width of the basal electrode. Conclusion: Although the SOE amplitude was similar suggesting similar neural recruitment in different regions of the cochlea, wider spread was found in the medial region even in the perimodiolar array. Thus, the use of objective tests will become increasingly important to assist in CI mapping, aiming for more effective and individualized programming
Keywords
References
- 1Goffi-Gomez MVS, Guedes MC, SantAnna SBG, Peralta CGO, Tsuji RK, Castilho AM, et al. Critérios de seleção e avaliação médica e audiológica dos candidatos ao implante coclear: protocolo HCFMUSP. Arq Otorrinolaringol. 2004;7(3):197-204.
- 2Bittencourt AG, Tsuji RK, Tempestini JP, Jacomo AL, Bento RF, Brito R. Cochlear implantation through the middle cranial fossa: a novel approach toaccessthe basal turnofthecochlea. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2013;79(2):158-62. PMid:23670319.
- 3van der Beek FB, Briaire JJ, Frijns JH. Effects of parameter manipulations on spread of excitation measured with electrically-evoked compound action potentials. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(6):465-74. http://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.653446 PMid:22315988.
 » http://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.653446
- 4Oliveira JAA. Implante coclear. Medicina. 2005;38(3-4):262-72. http://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-7262.v38i3/4p262-272
 » http://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-7262.v38i3/4p262-272
- 5Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342-60. http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7 PMid:23348845.
 » http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7
- 6Davis TJ, Zhang D, Gifford RH, Dawant BM, Labadie RF, Noble JH. Relationship between electrode-to-modiolus distance and current levels for adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(1):31-7. http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000896 PMid:26649603.
 » http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000896
- 7O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Wanna GB. The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2016;1(6):169-74. http://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.42 PMid:28894813.
 » http://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.42
- 8Pfingst BE, Zhou N, Colesa DJ, Watts MM, Strahl SB, Garadat SN, et al. Importance of cochlear health for implant function. Hear Res. 2015;322:77-88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.009 PMid:25261772.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.009
- 9Escudé B, James C, Deguine O, Cochard N, Eter E, Fraysse B. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurotol. 2006;11(Suppl 1):27-33. http://doi.org/10.1159/000095611 PMid:17063008.
 » http://doi.org/10.1159/000095611
- 10Ketterer MC, Aschendorff A, Arndt S, Hassepass F, Wesarg T, Laszig R, et al. The influence of cochlear morphology on the final electrode array position. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(2):385-94. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4842-y PMid:29242990.
 » http://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4842-y
- 11van de Heyning P, Arauz SL, Atlas M, Baumgartner WD, Caversaccio M, Chester-Browne R, et al. Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(6):251-62. http://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1240427 PMid:27900916.
 » http://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1240427
- 12Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Miller CA, South H. Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurotol. 2004;9(4):203-13. http://doi.org/10.1159/000078390 PMid:15205548.
 » http://doi.org/10.1159/000078390
- 13Xi X, Ji F, Han D, Hong M, Chen A. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2009;71(4):228-37. http://doi.org/10.1159/000229303 PMid:19707042.
 » http://doi.org/10.1159/000229303
- 14Söderqvist S, Lamminmäki S, Aarnisalo A, Hirvonen T, Sinkkonen ST, Sivonen V. Intraoperative transimpedance and spread of excitation profile correlations with a lateral-wall cochlear implant electrode array. Hear Res. 2021;405:108235. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108235 PMid:33901994.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108235
- 15Kopsch AC, Rahne T, Plontke SK, Wagner L. Influence of the spread of electric field on neural excitation in cochlear implant users: transimpedance and spread of excitation measurements. Hear Res. 2022;424:108591. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108591 PMid:35914395.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108591
- 16Kim JS, Hong SH, Moon IJ. Association between intracochlear electrode design and electrically-evoked compound action potential measures in cochlear implant users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;171(3):849-57. http://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.799 PMid:38774957.
 » http://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.799
- 17Berg KA, DeFreese AJ, Sisler-Dinwiddie AL, Labadie RF, Tawfik KO, Gifford RH. Clinical applications for spread of excitation functions obtained via electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAP). Otol Neurotol. 2024;45(7):790-7. http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004242 PMid:38923968.
 » http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004242
- 18Rader T, Nachtigäller P, Linke T, Weißgerber T, Baumann U. Exponential fitting of spread of excitation response measurements in cochlear implants. J Neurosci Methods. 2023;391:109854. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109854 PMid:37031765.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109854
- 19Cohen LT, Saunders E, Richardson LM. Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward masking data in cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol. 2004;43(6):346-55. http://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050044 PMid:15457817.
 » http://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050044
- 20Coutinho da Silva J, Schmidt Goffi-Gomez MV, Tsuji RK, Bento R, Brito R No. Is there any correlation between spread of excitation width and the refractory properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implant users? Audiol Neurotol. 2021;26(2):85-94. http://doi.org/10.1159/000508601 PMid:32998132.
 » http://doi.org/10.1159/000508601
- 21Soares JF, Siqueira AL. Introdução à estatística médica. Belo Horizonte: Coopmed; 2002. Comparando dois grupos; p. 174-233.
- 22Normando D, Honório HM. Bioestatística quase sem fórmulas. Maringá: Dental Press; 2022.
- 23Cohen LT, Saunders E, Knight MR, Cowan RS. Psychophysical measures in patients fitted with Contour and straight Nucleus electrode arrays. Hear Res. 2006;212(1-2):160-75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2005.11.005 PMid:16403611.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2005.11.005
- 24Kamakura T, Nadol JB Jr. Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human. Hear Res. 2016;339:132-41. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.06.015 PMid:27371868.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.06.015
- 25Biesheuvel JD, Briaire JJ, Frijns JH. A novel algorithm to derive spread of excitation based on deconvolution. Ear Hear. 2016;37(5):572-81. http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000296 PMid:27015548.
 » http://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000296
- 26Eisen MD, Franck KH. Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005;6(2):160-70. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-005-5057-2 PMid:15952052.
 » http://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-005-5057-2
- 27Fayad JN, Luxford W, Linthicum FH. The Clarion electrode positioner: temporal bone studies. Am J Otol. 2000;21(2):226-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80013-7 PMid:10733188.
 » http://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0709(00)80013-7
- 28Goffi-Gomez MVS, Corrêa FMDS, Magalhães AT, Hoshino AC, Samuel P, Sadowski T, et al. Is the spread of excitation different between adults and children cochlear implants users? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024;281(7):3491-8. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08451-0 PMid:38240771.
 » http://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08451-0
Submitted date:
03/31/2024
Accepted date:
01/20/2025
 
					

 Facebook
 Facebook Google+
 Google+ Twitter
 Twitter LinkedIn
 LinkedIn Mendeley
 Mendeley StumbleUpon
 StumbleUpon CiteULike
 CiteULike Reddit
 Reddit Email
 Email
 Email
 Email