Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31923041›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants with Electric Field Imaging/Transimpedance Measurements: A Human Cadaver Study.

Simone R de Rijk, Yu C Tam, Robert P Carlyon, Manohar L Bance

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Incidence of Trans-Impedance Matrix Pattern Variants in Patients With Normal Anatomy Receiving Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Detecting and managing partial shorts in Cochlear implants: A validation of scalp surface potential testing.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simone R de RijkDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Yu C TamEmmeline Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Robert P CarlyonMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Manohar L BanceDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16040Medical Research Council MC_U105559842Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExtracochlear electrodes in cochlear implants (CI), defined as individual electrodes on the electrode array located outside of the cochlea, are not a rare phenomenon. The presence of extracochlear electrodes frequently goes unnoticed and could result in them being assigned stimulation frequencies that are either not delivered to, or stimulating neurons that overlap with intracochlear electrodes, potentially reducing performance. The current gold-standard for detection of extracochlear electrodes is computed tomography (CT), which is time-intensive, costly and involves radiation. It is hypothesized that a collection of Stimulation-Current-Induced Non-Stimulating Electrode Voltage recordings (SCINSEVs), commonly referred to as "transimpedance measurements (TIMs)" or electric field imaging (EFI), could be utilized to detect extracochlear electrodes even when contact impedances are low. An automated analysis tool is introduced for detection and quantification of extracochlear electrodes.

designEight fresh-frozen human cadaveric heads were implanted with the Advanced Bionics HiRes90K with a HiFocus 1J lateral-wall electrode. The cochlea was flushed with 1.0% saline through the lateral semicircular canal. Contact impedances and SCINSEVs were recorded for complete insertion and for 1 to 5 extracochlear electrodes. Measured conditions included: air in the middle ear (to simulate electrodes situated in the middle ear), 1.0% saline in the middle ear (to simulate intraoperative conditions with saline or blood in the middle ear), and soft tissue (temporal muscle) wrapped around the extracochlear electrodes (to simulate postoperative soft-tissue encapsulation of the electrodes). Intraoperative SCINSEVs from patients were collected, for clinical purposes during slow insertion of the electrode array, as well as from a patient postoperatively with known extracochlear electrodes.

resultsFull insertion of the cochlear implant in the fresh-frozen human cadaveric heads with a flushed cochlea resulted in contact impedances in the range of 6.06 ± 2.99 kΩ (mean ± 2SD). Contact impedances were high when the extracochlear electrodes were located in air, but remained similar to intracochlear contact impedances when in saline or soft tissue. SCINSEVs showed a change in shape for the extracochlear electrodes in air, saline, and soft tissue. The automated analysis tool showed a specificity and sensitivity of 100% for detection of two or more extracochlear electrodes in saline and soft tissue. The quantification of two or more extracochlear electrodes was correct for 84% and 81% of the saline and soft tissue measurements, respectively.

conclusionsOur analysis of SCINSEVs (specifically the EFIs from this manufacturer) shows good potential as a detection tool for extracochlear electrodes, even when contact impedances remain similar to intracochlear values. SCINSEVs could potentially replace CT in the initial screening for extracochlear electrodes. Detecting migration of the electrode array during the final stages of surgery could potentially prevent re-insertion surgery for some CI users. The automated detection tool could assist in detection and quantification of two or more extracochlear electrodes.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCadaverCochleaEar, MiddleElectrodes, ImplantedHumans

Identifiers

PMID31923041
PMCPMC7115972
OpenAlexW3000227946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.