English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There are currently different trends in cochlear implant electrode design [1]. The manufacturers provide a variety of implant configurations including different receiver-stimulators, electrode arrays (e.g. straight or precurved, full-length or short) and sound processors to choose from, which can facilitate decision making on an individual basis. Proximity to the modiolus [2, 3], electrical current requirements [4], energy consumption, trauma to the cochlea [5], combined electro-acoustic stimulation [6, 7]), preservation of cochlear structures with low-trauma surgical technique [3, 8–10] and hearing preservation [11–14] are important aspects of implant design which have become the focus of many discussions and studies. For example, recent evidence suggests that speech discrimination is not improved by deep insertion, but it is significantly improved by perimodiolar position of the electrode [15]. Studies in implanted recipient groups using multiple implant types make it difficult to compare the influence of the implant electrode characteristics on outcomes in the presence of additional variables such as implant electronics, sound processors and speech coding paradigms. Hence, to reduce the number of variables, comparison of the influence of electrode designs on outcomes could be interpreted more effectively if a consistent receiverstimulator design and a common sound processor are used. Recent publications [16–20] represent imaging and electrophysiological results with CI532, but no comparative studies have yet been published. Our center’s postoperative radiological comparative study demonstrated that the Slim Modilar electrode array took a closer position to the modiolus than the Contour Advance electrode array [21]. As a consequence, the authors’ aim in this multicenter study that is to their knowledge the first with this focus was to compare the influence of various electrode designs upon selected electrophysiological outcomes for cochlear implant recipients using the same model of receiver-stimulator, CochlearTM Nucleus® Profile Series and sound processor in a retrospective study.

journal of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery

Electrophysiological measurements with electrode types of different perimodiolar properties and the same cochlear implant electronics – a retrospective comparison study