Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35814346›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2022

Insertion Guidance Based on Impedance Measurements of a Cochlear Electrode Array.

Enver Salkim, Majid Zamani, Dai Jiang, Shakeel R Saeed, Andreas Demosthenous

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of an impedance-based method to monitor the insertion of the electrode array during cochlear implantation.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Enver SalkimDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Majid ZamaniDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Dai JiangDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Shakeel R SaeedUCL Ear Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Andreas DemosthenousDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cochlear implantable neuromodulator provides substantial auditory perception to those with severe or profound impaired hearing. Correct electrode array positioning in the cochlea is one of the important factors for quality hearing, and misplacement may lead to additional injury to the cochlea. Visual inspection of the progress of electrode insertion is limited and mainly relies on the surgeon's tactile skills, and there is a need to detect in real-time the electrode array position in the cochlea during insertion. The available clinical measurement presently provides very limited information. Impedance measurement may be used to assist with the insertion of the electrode array. Using computational modeling of the cochlea, and its local tissue layers merging with the associated neuromodulator electrode array parameters, the impedance variations at different insertion depths and the proximities to the cochlea walls have been analyzed. In this study, an anatomical computational model of the temporal region of a patient is used to derive the relationship between impedance variations and the electrode proximity to the cochlea wall and electrode insertion depth. The aim was to examine whether the use of electrode impedance variations can be an effective marker of electrode proximity and electrode insertion depth. The proposed anatomical model simulates the quasi-static electrode impedance variations at different selected points but at considerable computation cost. A much less computationally intensive geometric model (~1/30) provided comparative impedance measurements with differences of <2%. Both use finite element analysis over the entire cross-section area of the scala tympani. It is shown that the magnitude of the impedance varies with both electrode insertion depth and electrode proximity to the adjacent anatomical layers (e.g., cochlea wall). In particular, there is a 1,400% increase when the electrode array is moved very close to the cochlea wall. This may help the surgeon to find the optimal electrode position within the scala tympani by observation of such impedance characteristics. The misplacement of the electrode array within the scala tympani may be eliminated by using the impedance variation metric during electrode array insertion if the results are validated with an experimental study.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcomputational modelselectrode proximityimpedance variationparameterization

Identifiers

PMID35814346
PMCPMC9260075
OpenAlexW4283399513

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.