Loading…
Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig
During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with differe...
Saved in:
| Published in: | PloS one 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183674-e0183674 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13 |
| container_end_page | e0183674 |
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e0183674 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Drouillard, Mylène Torres, Renato Mamelle, Elisabeth De Seta, Daniele Sterkers, Olivier Ferrary, Evelyne Nguyen, Yann |
| description | During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with different stiffnesses or external diameters were implanted in normal hearing guinea pigs via a motorized insertion tool carried on a robot-based arm, and insertion forces were recorded. Array prototypes 0.4 and 0.4R had 0.4 mm external diameter and prototype 0.3 had 0.3 mm external diameter. The axial stiffness was set to 1 for the 0.4 prototype and the stiffnesses of the 0.4R and 0.3 prototypes were calculated from this as 6.8 and 0.8 (relative units), respectively. Hearing was assessed preoperatively by the auditory brainstem response (ABR), and then at day 7 and day 30 post-implantation. A study of the macroscopic anatomy was performed on cochleae harvested at day 30 to examine the scala location of the array. At day 7, guinea pigs implanted with the 0.4R array had significantly poorer hearing results than those implanted with the 0.3 array (26±17.7, 44±23.4, 33±20.5 dB, n = 7, vs 5±8.7, 1±11.6, 12±11.5 dB, n = 6, mean±SEM, respectively, at 8, 16 and 24 kHz, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0183674 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1932154983</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A501665422</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4872de71697f43cb92877871843aa814</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A501665422</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk11r2zAUhs3YWLts_2BsgsFYL5JZH5bkm0Eo2xoIFPZ1KxT5yFFwpEyyy_rvpyxuSUovhi9sHz_vK53XOkXxGpczTAX-uAlD9Lqb7YKHWYkl5YI9Kc5xTcmUk5I-PXo-K16ktCnLikrOnxdnREoqOC3PC7XwthvAG0DBIujA9DE0gHSM-hal3lnrISWkfYMap7fQQ0TBozXo6HyLnEcmmHWXX5Hb7jrte2hQOzgPGu1c-7J4ZnWX4NV4nxQ_v3z-cXk1XV5_XVzOl1MjCO-nYCgm1YpTQrXVlgqjK26YtA1jtVlRaUltDdSUUi4ts1iwlcgdc25JVa8wnRRvD767LiQ1ZpPUPgFcsVrSTCwORBP0Ru2i2-p4q4J26l8hxFbp2DvTgWJSkAYE5rWwjJpVTaQQUmDJqNYSs-z1aVxtWG2hMeD7qLsT09Mv3q1VG25UVYmS5N1MiouDwfqB7Gq-VPtaiau6JBjf7Fv7MC4Ww-8BUq-2LhnoctYQhkOPkvGaiIy-e4A-nsRItTo367wNeY9mb6rmVYk5rxghmZo9QuWrga0z-dBZl-sngosTQWZ6-NO3ekhJLb5_-3_2-tcp-_6IzQev69cpdEPvgk-nIDuAJoaUItj7ZHGp9jNzl4baz4waZybL3hz_zHvR3ZDQv1HVDyo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1932154983</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Drouillard, Mylène ; Torres, Renato ; Mamelle, Elisabeth ; De Seta, Daniele ; Sterkers, Olivier ; Ferrary, Evelyne ; Nguyen, Yann</creator><contributor>Brown, Daniel J.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Drouillard, Mylène ; Torres, Renato ; Mamelle, Elisabeth ; De Seta, Daniele ; Sterkers, Olivier ; Ferrary, Evelyne ; Nguyen, Yann ; Brown, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><description>During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with different stiffnesses or external diameters were implanted in normal hearing guinea pigs via a motorized insertion tool carried on a robot-based arm, and insertion forces were recorded. Array prototypes 0.4 and 0.4R had 0.4 mm external diameter and prototype 0.3 had 0.3 mm external diameter. The axial stiffness was set to 1 for the 0.4 prototype and the stiffnesses of the 0.4R and 0.3 prototypes were calculated from this as 6.8 and 0.8 (relative units), respectively. Hearing was assessed preoperatively by the auditory brainstem response (ABR), and then at day 7 and day 30 post-implantation. A study of the macroscopic anatomy was performed on cochleae harvested at day 30 to examine the scala location of the array. At day 7, guinea pigs implanted with the 0.4R array had significantly poorer hearing results than those implanted with the 0.3 array (26±17.7, 44±23.4, 33±20.5 dB, n = 7, vs 5±8.7, 1±11.6, 12±11.5 dB, n = 6, mean±SEM, respectively, at 8, 16 and 24 kHz, p<0.01) or those implanted with the 0.4 array (44±23.4 dB, n = 7, vs 28±21.7 dB, n = 7, at 16 kHz, p<0.05). Hearing remained stable from day 7 to day 30. The maximal peak of insertion force was higher with the 0.4R array than with the 0.3 array (56±23.8 mN, n = 7, vs 26±8.7 mN, n = 6). Observation of the cochleae showed that an incorrectly positioned electrode array or fibrosis were associated with hearing loss ≥40 dB (at 16 kHz). An optimal position in the scala tympani with a flexible and thin array and prevention of fibrosis should be the primary objectives to preserve hearing during cochlear implantation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183674</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28837630</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acoustics ; Anatomy ; Animals ; Auditory Threshold ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Brain stem ; Cavia porcellus ; Cochlea ; Cochlear Implants ; Electrodes ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Engineering and Technology ; Fibrosis ; Guinea Pigs ; Health aspects ; Hearing aids ; Hearing loss ; Hearing Loss - surgery ; Histopathology ; Human health and pathology ; Implantation ; Insertion ; Life Sciences ; Male ; Manganese ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Neurosciences ; Patients ; Physical properties ; Physical Sciences ; Position (location) ; Prevention ; Prototypes ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Speech ; Stiffness ; Swine ; Translocation ; Transplants & implants ; Trauma</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183674-e0183674</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Drouillard et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><rights>2017 Drouillard et al 2017 Drouillard et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4635-0658 ; 0000-0003-0066-8556 ; 0000-0002-0866-3824 ; 0000-0001-6701-6793 ; 0000-0002-2054-3104</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1932154983/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1932154983?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28837630$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01590211$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Brown, Daniel J.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Drouillard, Mylène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Renato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mamelle, Elisabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Seta, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterkers, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrary, Evelyne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Yann</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with different stiffnesses or external diameters were implanted in normal hearing guinea pigs via a motorized insertion tool carried on a robot-based arm, and insertion forces were recorded. Array prototypes 0.4 and 0.4R had 0.4 mm external diameter and prototype 0.3 had 0.3 mm external diameter. The axial stiffness was set to 1 for the 0.4 prototype and the stiffnesses of the 0.4R and 0.3 prototypes were calculated from this as 6.8 and 0.8 (relative units), respectively. Hearing was assessed preoperatively by the auditory brainstem response (ABR), and then at day 7 and day 30 post-implantation. A study of the macroscopic anatomy was performed on cochleae harvested at day 30 to examine the scala location of the array. At day 7, guinea pigs implanted with the 0.4R array had significantly poorer hearing results than those implanted with the 0.3 array (26±17.7, 44±23.4, 33±20.5 dB, n = 7, vs 5±8.7, 1±11.6, 12±11.5 dB, n = 6, mean±SEM, respectively, at 8, 16 and 24 kHz, p<0.01) or those implanted with the 0.4 array (44±23.4 dB, n = 7, vs 28±21.7 dB, n = 7, at 16 kHz, p<0.05). Hearing remained stable from day 7 to day 30. The maximal peak of insertion force was higher with the 0.4R array than with the 0.3 array (56±23.8 mN, n = 7, vs 26±8.7 mN, n = 6). Observation of the cochleae showed that an incorrectly positioned electrode array or fibrosis were associated with hearing loss ≥40 dB (at 16 kHz). An optimal position in the scala tympani with a flexible and thin array and prevention of fibrosis should be the primary objectives to preserve hearing during cochlear implantation.</description><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Auditory Threshold</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Brain stem</subject><subject>Cavia porcellus</subject><subject>Cochlea</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants</subject><subject>Electrodes</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Fibrosis</subject><subject>Guinea Pigs</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hearing aids</subject><subject>Hearing loss</subject><subject>Hearing Loss - surgery</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Human health and pathology</subject><subject>Implantation</subject><subject>Insertion</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manganese</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical properties</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Position (location)</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Prototypes</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Speech</subject><subject>Stiffness</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Translocation</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk11r2zAUhs3YWLts_2BsgsFYL5JZH5bkm0Eo2xoIFPZ1KxT5yFFwpEyyy_rvpyxuSUovhi9sHz_vK53XOkXxGpczTAX-uAlD9Lqb7YKHWYkl5YI9Kc5xTcmUk5I-PXo-K16ktCnLikrOnxdnREoqOC3PC7XwthvAG0DBIujA9DE0gHSM-hal3lnrISWkfYMap7fQQ0TBozXo6HyLnEcmmHWXX5Hb7jrte2hQOzgPGu1c-7J4ZnWX4NV4nxQ_v3z-cXk1XV5_XVzOl1MjCO-nYCgm1YpTQrXVlgqjK26YtA1jtVlRaUltDdSUUi4ts1iwlcgdc25JVa8wnRRvD767LiQ1ZpPUPgFcsVrSTCwORBP0Ru2i2-p4q4J26l8hxFbp2DvTgWJSkAYE5rWwjJpVTaQQUmDJqNYSs-z1aVxtWG2hMeD7qLsT09Mv3q1VG25UVYmS5N1MiouDwfqB7Gq-VPtaiau6JBjf7Fv7MC4Ww-8BUq-2LhnoctYQhkOPkvGaiIy-e4A-nsRItTo367wNeY9mb6rmVYk5rxghmZo9QuWrga0z-dBZl-sngosTQWZ6-NO3ekhJLb5_-3_2-tcp-_6IzQev69cpdEPvgk-nIDuAJoaUItj7ZHGp9jNzl4baz4waZybL3hz_zHvR3ZDQv1HVDyo</recordid><startdate>20170824</startdate><enddate>20170824</enddate><creator>Drouillard, Mylène</creator><creator>Torres, Renato</creator><creator>Mamelle, Elisabeth</creator><creator>De Seta, Daniele</creator><creator>Sterkers, Olivier</creator><creator>Ferrary, Evelyne</creator><creator>Nguyen, Yann</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4635-0658</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0066-8556</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0866-3824</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6701-6793</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2054-3104</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170824</creationdate><title>Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig</title><author>Drouillard, Mylène ; Torres, Renato ; Mamelle, Elisabeth ; De Seta, Daniele ; Sterkers, Olivier ; Ferrary, Evelyne ; Nguyen, Yann</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Auditory Threshold</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Brain stem</topic><topic>Cavia porcellus</topic><topic>Cochlea</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants</topic><topic>Electrodes</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Fibrosis</topic><topic>Guinea Pigs</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hearing aids</topic><topic>Hearing loss</topic><topic>Hearing Loss - surgery</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Human health and pathology</topic><topic>Implantation</topic><topic>Insertion</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manganese</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical properties</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Position (location)</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Prototypes</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Speech</topic><topic>Stiffness</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Translocation</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Drouillard, Mylène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Renato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mamelle, Elisabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Seta, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterkers, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrary, Evelyne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Yann</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Drouillard, Mylène</au><au>Torres, Renato</au><au>Mamelle, Elisabeth</au><au>De Seta, Daniele</au><au>Sterkers, Olivier</au><au>Ferrary, Evelyne</au><au>Nguyen, Yann</au><au>Brown, Daniel J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-08-24</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0183674</spage><epage>e0183674</epage><pages>e0183674-e0183674</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>During cochlear implantation, electrode array translocation and trauma should be avoided to preserve residual hearing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of physical parameters of the array on residual hearing and cochlear structures during insertion. Three array prototypes with different stiffnesses or external diameters were implanted in normal hearing guinea pigs via a motorized insertion tool carried on a robot-based arm, and insertion forces were recorded. Array prototypes 0.4 and 0.4R had 0.4 mm external diameter and prototype 0.3 had 0.3 mm external diameter. The axial stiffness was set to 1 for the 0.4 prototype and the stiffnesses of the 0.4R and 0.3 prototypes were calculated from this as 6.8 and 0.8 (relative units), respectively. Hearing was assessed preoperatively by the auditory brainstem response (ABR), and then at day 7 and day 30 post-implantation. A study of the macroscopic anatomy was performed on cochleae harvested at day 30 to examine the scala location of the array. At day 7, guinea pigs implanted with the 0.4R array had significantly poorer hearing results than those implanted with the 0.3 array (26±17.7, 44±23.4, 33±20.5 dB, n = 7, vs 5±8.7, 1±11.6, 12±11.5 dB, n = 6, mean±SEM, respectively, at 8, 16 and 24 kHz, p<0.01) or those implanted with the 0.4 array (44±23.4 dB, n = 7, vs 28±21.7 dB, n = 7, at 16 kHz, p<0.05). Hearing remained stable from day 7 to day 30. The maximal peak of insertion force was higher with the 0.4R array than with the 0.3 array (56±23.8 mN, n = 7, vs 26±8.7 mN, n = 6). Observation of the cochleae showed that an incorrectly positioned electrode array or fibrosis were associated with hearing loss ≥40 dB (at 16 kHz). An optimal position in the scala tympani with a flexible and thin array and prevention of fibrosis should be the primary objectives to preserve hearing during cochlear implantation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28837630</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0183674</doi><tpages>e0183674</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4635-0658</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0066-8556</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0866-3824</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6701-6793</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2054-3104</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183674-e0183674 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1932154983 |
| source | PubMed (Medline); Publicly Available Content Database |
| subjects | Acoustics Anatomy Animals Auditory Threshold Biology and Life Sciences Brain stem Cavia porcellus Cochlea Cochlear Implants Electrodes Electrodes, Implanted Engineering and Technology Fibrosis Guinea Pigs Health aspects Hearing aids Hearing loss Hearing Loss - surgery Histopathology Human health and pathology Implantation Insertion Life Sciences Male Manganese Medicine and Health Sciences Neurosciences Patients Physical properties Physical Sciences Position (location) Prevention Prototypes Research and Analysis Methods Speech Stiffness Swine Translocation Transplants & implants Trauma |
| title | Influence of electrode array stiffness and diameter on hearing in cochlear implanted guinea pig |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T21%3A53%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20electrode%20array%20stiffness%20and%20diameter%20on%20hearing%20in%20cochlear%20implanted%20guinea%20pig&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Drouillard,%20Myl%C3%A8ne&rft.date=2017-08-24&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0183674&rft.epage=e0183674&rft.pages=e0183674-e0183674&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0183674&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA501665422%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ec3125b6323afaf37ca56c48fd449cb38f29fce933368f4f174b736766f259b13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1932154983&rft_id=info:pmid/28837630&rft_galeid=A501665422&rfr_iscdi=true |