Effect of Proximity to the Modiolus for the Cochlear CI532 Slim Modiolar Electrode Array on Evoked Compound Action Potentials and Programming Levels

• Published in: Audiology & neurotology Vol. 27; no. 5; pp. 397 - 405
• Main Authors: Greisiger, Ralf, Heldahl, Mariann Gjervik, Myhrum, Marte, Sørensen, Torquil Macdonald, Dammerud, Jens Jørgen, Rasmussen, Kjell, Korslund, Hilde, Bunne, Marie, Jablonski, Greg Eigner
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel, Switzerland 01.09.2022
• Subjects: Research Article; Objective measures; Evoked Compound Action Potential; CI532; Imaging; Programming levels; Pullback
• ISSN: 1420-3030; 1421-9700; 1421-9700
• DOI: 10.1159/000524256

Background: The first surgeries with CI532 showed an effect of the proximity of the electrode to the modiolus on the Evoked Compound Action Potentials (ECAPs). Objectives: Objectives of the study were to investigate the effect of the “pullback” procedure on intraoperative ECAP responses in three different electrode array positions and additionally to compare behavioral thresholds with the thresholds obtained in a group of patients using the standard insertion. The hypothesis of this study is that pullback will cause lower ECAPs and behavioral thresholds. Patients: The study included 40 patients, 20 in the pullback insertion group and 20 in the standard insertion group (without pullback). Method: During insertion of the CI532 electrode array, ECAP was performed in three different positions for the pullback group: at initial insertion, at over-insertion, and after pullback. Insertion was monitored by fluoroscopy. In the standard group, ECAP was performed at the initial position, which is also the final position. ECAP thresholds (T-ECAPs) were compared within subjects at the initial and the final position in the pullback group and between groups in the final positions of the pullback and standard groups. Programming levels (C- and T-levels) were compared between the two groups 1 year after switch-on. Results: Intraoperative measurements pullback shows lower average T-ECAPs after pullback compared to thresholds in initial position. Comparison of intraoperative T-ECAPs at the final positions showed no statistically significant difference between the pullback group and the standard insertion group. Furthermore, 1 year after switch-on there was no statistically significant difference in C- and T-levels between the two groups. Conclusion: The pullback maneuver of the CI532 electrode array after an over-insertion gave significantly lower T-ECAPs compared to the thresholds at the initial position. However, the between-groups analysis of pullback and standard insertion showed neither significantly different T-ECAPs nor different programming levels. Because T-ECAPs and programming levels vary considerably between subjects, large groups are required to detect differences between groups. Additionally, the effect pullback technique to preserving the residual hearing is not known yet.