Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTYKOCINSKI, MICHAELen_US
dc.contributor.authorCohen, Lawrence T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPyman, Brian C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRoland (Jr), Thomasen_US
dc.contributor.authorTreaba, Claudiuen_US
dc.contributor.authorPALAMARA, JOSEPHen_US
dc.contributor.authorDahm, Markus C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShepherd, Robert K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorXU, JINen_US
dc.contributor.authorCowan, Robert S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCohen, Noel L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorClark, Graeme M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-21T20:34:02Z
dc.date.available2014-05-21T20:34:02Z
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.identifier.citationTykocinski, M., Cohen, L. T., Pyman, B. C., Roland (Jr), T., Treaba, C., Palamara, J., et al. (2000). Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays. American Journal of Otology, 21, 205-211.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/27579
dc.descriptionThis is a publisher’s version of an article published in American Journal of Otology 2000. This version is reproduced with permission of Lippincott Wilkins & Williams.en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study was conducted to evaluate the insertion properties and intracochlear trajectories of three perimodiolar electrode array designs and to compare these designs with the standard Cochlear /Melbourne array. Background: Advantages to be expected of a perimodiolar electrode array include both a reduction in stimulus thresholds and an increase in dynamic range, resulting in a more localized stimulation pattern of the spiral ganglion cells, reduced power consumption, and, therefore, longer speech processor battery life. Methods: The test arrays were implanted into human temporal bones. Image analysis was performed on a radiograph taken after the insertion. The cochleas were then histologically processed with the electrode array in situ, and the resulting sections were subsequently assessed for position of the electrode array as well as insertion-related intracochlear damage. Results: All perimodiolar electrode arrays were inserted deeper and showed trajectories that were generally closer to the modiolus compared with the standard electrode array. However, although the precurved array designs did not show significant insertion trauma, the method of insertion needed improvement. After insertion of the straight electrode array with positioner, signs of severe insertion trauma in the majority o fimplanted cochleas were found. Conclusions: Although it was possible to position the electrode arrays close to the modiolus, none of the three perimodiolar designs investigated fulfilled satisfactorily all three criteria of being easy, safe, and a traumatic to implant.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofScientific publications, vol.12, 2000-2001, no.1196en_US
dc.subjectcochlear implanten_US
dc.subjectperimodiolar electrode designen_US
dc.titleComparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arraysen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
melbourne.source.titleAmerican Journal of Otologyen_US
melbourne.source.volume21en_US
melbourne.source.pages205-211en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorTYKOCINSKI, MICHAEL
melbourne.contributor.authorBriggs, Robert
melbourne.contributor.authorClark, Graeme
melbourne.contributor.authorPYMAN, BRIAN
melbourne.contributor.authorDAHM, MARKUS
melbourne.contributor.authorCOHEN, LAWRENCE
melbourne.contributor.authorCowan, Robert
melbourne.contributor.authorXu, Jin
melbourne.contributor.authorShepherd, Robert
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record