RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Computed-tomography estimates of interaural mismatch in insertion depth and scalar location in bilateral cochlear-implant users
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.26.21252533
DO 10.1101/2021.02.26.21252533
A1 Goupell, Matthew J.
A1 Noble, Jack H.
A1 Phatak, Sandeep A.
A1 Kolberg, Elizabeth
A1 Cleary, Miranda
A1 Stakhovskaya, Olga A.
A1 Jensen, Kenneth K.
A1 Hoa, Michael
A1 Kim, H. Jeffrey
A1 Bernstein, Joshua G. W.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/01/2021.02.26.21252533.abstract
AB Hypothesis We hypothesized that the bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) users would have a range of interaural insertion-depth mismatch because of different physical placements or characteristics of the arrays, but less than half of electrodes would have less than 75° or 3 mm of interaural insertion-depth mismatch. We also hypothesized that interaural insertion- depth mismatch would be more prevalent nearer the apex, when electrodes were located outside of scala tympani (i.e., possible interaural scalar mismatch), and when the arrays were a mix of pre-curved and straight types.Background Brainstem neurons in the superior olivary complex are exquisitely sensitive to interaural differences, the cues to sound localization. These binaurally sensitive neurons rely on interaurally place-of-stimulation-matched inputs at the periphery. BI-CI users may have interaural differences in insertion depth and scalar location, causing interaural place- of-stimulation mismatch that impairs binaural abilities.Methods Insertion depths and scalar locations were calculated from temporal-bone computed-tomography (CT) scans of 107 BI-CI users (27 Advanced Bionics, 62 Cochlear, and 18 Med-El). Each subject had either both pre-curved, both straight, or one of each type of array (mixed).Results The median interaural insertion-depth mismatch was 23.4° or 1.3 mm. Relatively large interaural insertion-depth mismatch sufficient to disrupt binaural processing occurred for about 15% of electrode pairs [defined as >75° (13.0% of electrode pairs) or >3 mm (19.0% of electrode pairs)]. There was a significant three-way interaction of insertion depth, scalar location, and array type. Interaural insertion-depth mismatch was most prevalent when electrode pairs were more apically located, electrode pairs had interaural scalar mismatch (i.e., one in Scala Tympani, one in Scala Vestibuli), and when the arrays were both pre-curved.Conclusion Large interaural insertion-depth mismatch can occur in BI-CI users. For new BI-CI users, improved surgical techniques to avoid interaural insertion-depth and scalar mismatch is recommended. For existing BI-CI users with interaural insertion-depth mismatch, interaural alignment of clinical frequency allocation tables by an audiologist might remediate any negative consequences to spatial-hearing abilities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementResearch reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DC015798 (M.J.G. and J.G.B.W.), R01DC014037 (J.N.), and R01DC014462 (Dawant).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Rearch was approved by Institutional Review Boards at University of Maryland - College Park and Vanderbilt University.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.