Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T23:53:07.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrode complications in 100 adults with multichannel cochlear implants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

R. L. Stoddart  and
H. R. Cooper
R. L. Stoddart
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
H. R. Cooper*
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Huw Cooper, Consultant Audiological Scientist, Hearing Assessment and Rehabilitation Centre,Selly Oak Hospital, Raddlebarn Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, West Midlands B29 6JD.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At switch-on (first post-operative stimulation of the implant) and during subsequent reprogramming, electrodes can, in some patients, be found to be non-functional or to be performing sub-optimally for a number of reasons. This paper examines the reasons for the poor performance of these electrodes by means of a retrospective analysis of 100 patient records. All of these patients received the Nucleus multichannel device.

The most common reason for an electrode to require de-activation was found to be facial nerve stimulation, with poor sound quality and pain also being very common. Other reasons included absence of auditory stimulation, vibration, reduced dynamic range, throat sensations, absence of loudness growth or dizziness. The occurrence of these reasons along the electrode array was examined, more basal electrodes being found to be non-functional as a result of having a small dynamic range or poor sound quality. Pain and vibration were found to occur throughout the array and the more apical electrodes were found to be non-functional as a result of facial nerve stimulation. It is suggested that the electrodes at the basal end of the array are likely to be extra-cochlear or are at the site of the most cochlear damage, whereas the more apical electrodes lie in closer proximity to the facial nerve.

Keywords

Cochlear implantsElectrodes, complications
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 113 , Supplement 24 , August 1999 , pp. 18 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cohen, N. L., Hoffman, R. A. (1993) Surgical complications of multichannel cochlear implants in North America. In Cochlear Implants: New Perspectives. (Fraysse, B., Deguine, O., eds.) Advances in Otolaryngology Karger Basel pp 70–74.Google Scholar
Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. (1995) Cochlear Implantation in the UK 1990–1994. Report by the MRC Institute of Hearing Research on the Evaluation of the National Cochlear Implant Programme. Main report. HMSO, pp 191–198.Google Scholar
Woolford, J. T., Ramsden, R. T. (1997) Non-auditory stimulation in cochlear implant patients. Presentation at the Vth International Cochlear Implant ConferenceMay 1–3, 1997(New York).Google Scholar