101. Force and pressure measurements in temporal bones
- Author
-
Wendy J. Huinck, Daniel Jethanamest, Chantal Snels, David R. Friedmann, Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus, Claudiu Treaba, Ingeborg Dhooge, and John Thomas Roland
- Subjects
Hearing loss ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Straight electrode ,Sensory disorders Donders Center for Medical Neuroscience [Radboudumc 12] ,law.invention ,Electrode insertion ,03 medical and health sciences ,All institutes and research themes of the Radboud University Medical Center ,0302 clinical medicine ,law ,Cochlear implant ,Pressure ,otorhinolaryngologic diseases ,medicine ,Humans ,Hearing Loss ,Intraoperative Complications ,030223 otorhinolaryngology ,Round window ,business.industry ,Cochlear Implantation ,Biomechanical Phenomena ,Cochlea ,Electrodes, Implanted ,Pressure measurement ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Otorhinolaryngology ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Hydrodynamics ,Fresh frozen ,medicine.symptom ,business ,Inner ear structure ,Biomedical engineering - Abstract
Purpose Some cochlear implant (CI) patients lose their residual hearing during surgery. Two factors that might play a role in residual hearing loss are the change in intracochlear hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall during electrode insertion. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a difference in peak hydraulic pressure and peak force on the cochlear wall exists during a CI electrode insertion with different insertion techniques. Materials and methods Twenty fresh frozen temporal bones were used. Hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall were recorded during straight electrode insertions with 1) slow versus fast insertion speed, 2) manual versus automatic insertion method and 3) round window approach (RWA) versus extended RWA (ERWA). Results When inserting with a slow compared to a fast insertion speed, the peak hydraulic pressure is 239% (95% CI: 130–399%) higher with a RWA and 58% (95% CI: 6–137%) higher with an ERWA. However, the peak force on the cochlear wall is a factor 29% less (95% CI: 13–43%) with a slow insertion speed. No effect was found of opening and insertion method. Conclusions As contradictory findings were found for hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall on insertion speed, it remains unclear which insertion speed (slow versus fast) is less traumatic to inner ear structure.
- Published
- 2021