Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015:2015:609607.
doi: 10.1155/2015/609607. Epub 2015 Sep 28.

Influence of Ionizing Radiation on Two Generations of Cochlear Implants

Nicolas Guevara  1 , Anaïs Gérard  2 , Jeanne Dupré  3 , Delphine Goursonnet  3 , Michel Hoen  3 , Dan Gnansia  3 , Gaëlle Angellier  1 , Juliette Thariat  4
Affiliations

Influence of Ionizing Radiation on Two Generations of Cochlear Implants

Nicolas Guevara et al. Biomed Res Int. 2015.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to test the behavior of two different generations of cochlear implant systems subjected to a clinical radiotherapy scheme and to determine the maximal acceptable cumulative radiation levels at which the devices show out-of-specification behaviors. Using stereotactic irradiation (Cyberknife, 6 MV photon beam), three Digisonic SP and three Neuro devices were submitted to 5 Gy doses that cumulated to 60 Gy (12 sessions) and 80 Gy (16 sessions), respectively. A follow-up series of irradiation was then applied, in which Digisonic SP devices received two additional fractions of 50 Gy each, cumulating to 160 Gy, and Neuro devices three additional fractions of 20, 40, and 150 Gy, cumulating to 290 Gy. Output current values were monitored during the treatment. At clinical doses, with 60 or 80 Gy cumulative radiation exposure, no single measurement showed more than 10% divergence from the reference measure. The cochlear implants tested in this study showed high resistance to clinically relevant cumulative radiation doses and showed no out-of-bounds behavior up to cumulative doses of 140 or 160 Gy. These observations suggest that cochlear implant users can undergo radiotherapy up to cumulative doses well above those currently used in clinical situations without risk of failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
General presentation of the cochlear implant system. (a) The external speech-processor. (b) The implanted receiver/transducer. ① BTE-housed speech processor, ② antenna, ③ skin barrier, ④ body of the receiver, and ⑤ multielectrode array.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Left: cross section of the Digisonic SP cochlear implant. ① Silicone overmolding. ② Ceramic, thickness 1.2 mm. ③ Samarium cobalt magnet, 1.5 mm. ④ Titanium base, 0.4 mm. ⑤ Electronic board: epoxy resin FR-4, 0.4 mm. (b) Right: cross section of the Neuro cochlear implant. ① Silicone overmolding, min. thickness 0.4 mm. ② Ceramic, 1.25 mm: Zircon. ③ Titanium cover, 0.25 mm. ④ Magnet, 3 mm. ⑤ Electronic board and components.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Holders used to present the devices for irradiation. (a) The single box was used for presenting the three Digisonic SP devices and (b) an individual holder, shown without the 5 mm PC covers, was used to hold the Neuro devices.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Evolution of output currents for the 3 Digisonic SP devices. Average values across the 20 electrodes over the 12 radiation sessions were expressed in % of reference measure. Dotted lines show the reliability interval of ±10%. Close-up of the 85 to 115% range, error bars show the standard deviation for each measure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Evolution of output currents for the 3 Neuro CI devices. Average values across the 20 electrodes over the 12 radiation sessions were expressed in % of reference measure. Dotted lines show the reliability interval of ±10%. Close-up of the 85 to 115% range, error bars show the standard deviation for each measure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Thariat J., Hannoun-Levi J.-M., Myint A. S., Vuong T., Gérard J.-P. Past, present, and future of radiotherapy for the benefit of patients. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2013;10(1):52–60. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.203. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hashii H., Hashimoto T., Okawa A., et al. Comparison of the effects of high-energy photon beam irradiation (10 and 18 MV) on 2 types of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2013;85(3):840–845. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.05.043. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hurkmans C. W., Scheepers E., Springorum B. G. F., Uiterwaal H. Influence of radiotherapy on the latest generation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2005;63(1):282–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Solan A. N., Solan M. J., Bednarz G., Goodkin M. B. Treatment of patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2004;59(3):897–904. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.038. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumann R., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Goldring J. E., et al. The influence of ionizing radiation on the CLARION 1.2 cochlear implant during radiation therapy. American Journal of Otology. 1999;20(1):50–52. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources