A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cochlear Implant Insertion Routes and Intra-operative Electrophysiological Measurements: A Retrospective Analysis at a Tertiary Care Centre. | LitMetric

Background: Cochlear implant surgeries are performed by different surgical routes, Round window (RW), Extended round window (Ext RW) and Cochleostomy (C). Optimum intracochlear electrode placement is important to achieve a successful outcome. Intra-operative electrophysiological testing (Impedance and ECAP) is crucial to assess the device function and appropriate electrode placement. The variability of portal of electrode insertion might affect the neural response and its characteristics.

Objective: To compare the intraoperative electrophysiological measurements (Impedance and ECAP) for possible differences on auditory nerve stimulation across the three electrode insertion routes.

Materials And Methods: This is a retrospective data analysis of 47 cochlear implant recipients at a tertiary care centre in Central India over a period of 4 years. They were broadly divided into two groups depending on the electrode design as full banded and half banded. Intraoperative impedances were recorded for different modes of stimulation and ECAP measured at E5, E10, E15, E20 electrodes in both the groups across the three insertion routes.

Results: In the half-banded group, the impedance values in different modes CG, MP1, MP2, MP1 + 2 did not differ significantly among the surgical routes at all four electrodes. While in the full banded group, for CG mode impedance values at E5 differ significantly. Rest for other modes in full banded group, there was no statistically significant difference across the three routes.

Conclusion: The present study supports that there is no statistically significant difference in the intraoperative impedance and ECAP measurements in both, the full-banded and half- banded electrodes across the three surgical routes implying that, all the three surgical approaches provide equal stimulation of the auditory nerve. The CI surgeon can select the electrode insertion portal based on the surgical anatomy, the implant type and individual preferences.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10908756PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04322-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cochlear implant
12
surgical routes
12
impedance ecap
12
electrode insertion
12
full banded
12
intra-operative electrophysiological
8
electrophysiological measurements
8
tertiary care
8
care centre
8
round window
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!