Author: Ahn Joong Ho Oh Soo Hee Chung Jong Woo Lee Kwang-Sun
Publisher: Informa Healthcare
ISSN: 0001-6489
Source: Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Vol.129, Iss.6, 2009-06, pp. : 588-591
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
Conclusion. In this study, we concluded that electrode design and location did not have a high level of influence on the prevalence of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in normal cochleae. Objective. To analysis the prevalence of FNS after cochlear implantation with Nucleus 24-channel devices according to types of electrodes arrays. Patients and methods. We retrospectively analyzed medical and mapping records of 394 patients who received cochlear implants (CIs) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation from April 1999 to March 2007. Results. In all, 23 of 394 (5.8%) patients had FNS (CI24M 4 of 39 [10.3%], CI24RCS 9 of 192 [4.7%], CI24RST 9 of 21 [42.9%], and CI24RECA 1 of 87 [1.1%]). In addition, 4 of 324 (1.2%) patients with normal cochleae complained of FNS (CI24M 1 of 33 [3.0%], CI24RCS 2 of 173 [1.2%], and CI24RECA 1 of 71 [1.4%]). There was no difference between straight and perimodiolar electrode arrays in patients with normal cochleae. In addition, when comparing two types of Contour™ electrodes, Contour Advance™ (soft-tip) electrodes offered significantly lower incidence of FNS than Contour™ electrode arrays. We could manage these patients with methods such as decrease of C-level, selective channel turning off, and changes of mapping strategies.
Related content
By Henkin Y. Kaplan-Neeman R. Muchnik C. Kronenberg J. Hildesheimer M.
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Vol. 67, Iss. 8, 2003-08 ,pp. :
Cochlear Orientation and Dimensions of the Facial Recess in Cochlear Implantation
ORL, Vol. 65, Iss. 6, 2004-02 ,pp. :
Reoperations After Cochlear Implantation
By Ribári Ottó Répássy Gábor Küstel Marianna
Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Vol. 120, Iss. 2, 2000-08 ,pp. :