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
Comparative Study
. 2016 Sep;37(8):1032-5.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001140.

Electrode Location and Audiologic Performance After Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Study Between Nucleus CI422 and CI512 Electrode Arrays

Brendan P O'Connell  1 , Jacob B Hunter, René H Gifford, Alejandro Rivas, David S Haynes, Jack H Noble, George B Wanna
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Electrode Location and Audiologic Performance After Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Study Between Nucleus CI422 and CI512 Electrode Arrays

Brendan P O'Connell et al. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: 1) Compare rates of scala tympani (ST) insertion between Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes and Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrodes; 2) examine audiometric performance with both electrode arrays, while controlling for electrode location.

Setting: Tertiary academic hospital.

Patients: Fifty-six post-lingually deafened adults undergoing cochlear implant (CI).

Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measures of interest were scalar electrode location and postoperative audiologic performance.

Results: Fifty-six implants in 49 patients were included; 20 were implanted with Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes, and 36 were implanted with Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrodes. Overall, 62.5% (35 of 56) of implants had all electrodes located within the ST. Significantly, higher rates of ST insertion (90%) were observed for Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes when compared with Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrodes (47.2%) (p = 0.002). In regards to audiologic performance, consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) scores were significantly higher for Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes (55.4%) compared with Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrodes (36.5%) (p = 0.005). In addition, AzBio scores were better for Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes (71.2%) when compared with Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrodes (46.7%) (p = 0.004). Controlling for ST insertion, higher AzBio scores were again observed for Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes (p = 0.02).

Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that the Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrode is more likely to reside entirely within the ST when compared with the Nucleus CI512 Contour Advance electrode. Furthermore, AzBio scores were superior for patients with Nucleus CI422 Slim Straight electrodes in all patients, as well as those with only ST insertions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The number of implants achieving either a scala tympani or scala vestibuli insertion is depicted here. Higher rates of scala tympani insertion were noted with CI422 electrode arrays (p=0.002).
Figure 2
Figure 2
AzBio scores and CNC scores at 1 year post-implant were higher for CI422 electrodes than CI512 electrodes (p=0.004 and p=0.005, respectively).
Figure 3
Figure 3
A positive correlation between AID and CNC score was noted for CI422 electrode arrays.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wanna GB, Noble JH, Carlson ML, et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(Suppl 6):S1–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aschendorff A, Kromeier J, Klenzner T, Laszig R. Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear. 2007;28(2 Suppl):75S–79S. - PubMed
    1. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342–360. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wanna GB, Noble JH, Gifford RH, et al. Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(8):1343–1348. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boyer E, Karkas A, Attye A, Lefournier V, Escude B, Schmerber S. Scalar localization by cone-beam computed tomography of cochlear implant carriers: a comparative study between straight and periomodiolar precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(3):422–429. - PubMed

Publication types