Otology & Neurotology

Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2000 - Volume 21 - Issue 2 > Comparison of Electrode Position in the Human Cochlea Using...
American Journal of Otology:
Cochlear Implants

Comparison of Electrode Position in the Human Cochlea Using Various Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays

Tykocinski, Michael*†; Cohen, Lawrence T.*†; Pyman, Brian C.*†; Roland, Thomas Jr.§; Treaba, Claudiu*¶; Palamara, Joseph‡; Dahm, Markus C.*†; Shepherd, Robert K.†; Xu, Jin*†; Cowan, Robert S.*†; Cohen, Noel L.§; Clark, Graeme M.*†

Collapse Box


Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear/Melbourne array.

Background: Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life.

Methods: The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage.

Results: All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority of implanted cochleas were found.

Conclusions: Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and atraumatic to implant.

© 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Follow Us




Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.