Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(02): 105-114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739290
Research Article

Long-Term Impedance Trend in Cochlear Implant Users with Genetically Determined Congenital Profound Hearing Loss

Davide Brotto   *
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Ezio Caserta   *
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Flavia Sorrentino
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Niccolò Favaretto
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Gino Marioni
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Alessandro Martini
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Roberto Bovo
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Flavia Gheller
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
,
Patrizia Trevisi
1   Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding No funding was received for the present study.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Impedance is a basic parameter registered at any cochlear implant (CI) fitting section. It is useful in monitoring electrode functioning and the status of the surrounding anatomical structures.

Purpose The main aim of this study is to evaluate the 5-year impedance-value trend in patients affected by congenital genetically determined profound hearing loss implanted with Cochlear Nucleus devices.

Research Design Observational, retrospective, monocentric study.

Study Sample Twenty-seven consecutive patients (9 females: 12.0 ± 7.6 years old; range: 4.2–40.4) with genetic diagnosis of GJB2 mutation causing congenital profound hearing loss who underwent cochlear implantation from 2010 to 2020 with good auditory benefit.

Intervention Impedance values of the CIs were obtained from the CIs' programming software that registers those parameters for each follow-up section of each patient.

Data Collection and Analysis Impedance values were measured over time (activation, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months after cochlear implantation), for each of the 22 electrodes, in common ground, monopolar 1, monopolar 2, and monopolar 1 + 2 stimulation modes.

Results A significant variation was found between CI activation and 6-month follow-up. This difference was found for each of the 22 electrodes. Electrodes 1 to 4 showed higher impedance values compared with all other electrodes in each time interval. Repeated-measures analysis of variance ruled out significant variations in impedance values from 6-month to 5-year follow-up.

Conclusions Impedance values were extremely stable after activation, at least for the first 5 years. In these cases, even minimal impedance variations should be carefully evaluated for their possible implications on hearing performance.

Keywords

impedance - cochlear implants - telemetry - hearing loss

Note

Informed consent by participants and Institutional Review Board approval were not required since the study is retrospective and data are acquired for clinical management of the patients. For retrospective studies, informed consent and Institutional Review Board approval are not required in Italy.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.


Availability of Data and Material

Full data can be requested to the corresponding author of the study.


Geolocation Information

https://goo.gl/maps/i1YMWvAapHh7RKZ87


* Davide Brotto and Ezio Caserta contributed equally to the study and should be considered co-first authors.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 25 March 2021

Accepted: 24 September 2021

Article published online:
16 May 2022

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sharma SD, Cushing SL, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: a review of the literature. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 133: 109984 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109984.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chan DK, Chang KW. GJB2-associated hearing loss: systematic review of worldwide prevalence, genotype, and auditory phenotype. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (02) E34-E53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johnson SL, Ceriani F, Houston O. et al. Connexin-mediated signaling in nonsensory cells is crucial for the development of sensory inner hair cells in the mouse cochlea. J Neurosci 2017; 37 (02) 258-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wolfe J. Cochlear Implants: Audiologic Management and Considerations for Implantable Hearing Devices. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hughes ML. Objective Measures in Cochlear Implants. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Wilk M, Hessler R, Mugridge K. et al. Impedance changes and fibrous tissue growth after cochlear implantation are correlated and can be reduced using a dexamethasone eluting electrode. PLoS One 2016; 11 (02) e0147552 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147552.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Franks W, Schenker I, Schmutz P, Hierlemann A. Impedance characterization and modeling of electrodes for biomedical applications. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005; 52 (07) 1295-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Duan YY, Clark GM, Cowan RS. A study of intra-cochlear electrodes and tissue interface by electrochemical impedance methods in vivo. Biomaterials 2004; 25 (17) 3813-3828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zarowski A, Molisz A, Cardinael E. et al. Prediction of behavioral T/C levels in cochlear implant patients based upon analysis of electrode impedances. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (09) 674-679
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Clark GM, Shute SA, Shepherd RK, Carter TD. Cochlear implantation: osteoneogenesis, electrode-tissue impedance, and residual hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 40-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Carlson ML, Archibald DJ, Dabade TS. et al. Prevalence and timing of individual cochlear implant electrode failures. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (06) 893-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zwolan T, Heller J, McGreevy C. Atypical electrode impedance patterns and clinical outcomes. Poster presentation at the 12th International conference on cochlear implants and other implantable auditory technologies. . Baltimore, MD. May 3-5, 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Jia H, Venail F, Piron J-P. et al. Effect of surgical technique on electrode impedance after cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011; 120 (08) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Busby PA, Plant KL, Whitford LA. Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 2002; 3 (02) 87-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Kronenberg J, Hildesheimer M. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2003; 67 (08) 873-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van Wermeskerken GKA, van Olphen AF, Smoorenburg GF. Intra- and postoperative electrode impedance of the straight and Contour arrays of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: relation to T and C levels. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (09) 537-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Velandia S, Martinez D, Goncalves S. et al. Effect of age, electrode array, and time on cochlear implant impedances. Cochlear Implants Int 2020; 21 (06) 344-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ. et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (06) 471-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 ©Cochlear Limited. Custom Sound® EP Software Version 6.0 User Guide. D1643909 V2 OCT20. 2020
  • 20 © Cochlear Limited. Clinical Guidance Document - Custom Sound® 5.2. D1467798 ISS2 DEC18. 2018
  • 21 Benatti A, Castiglione A, Trevisi P. et al. Endocochlear inflammation in cochlear implant users: case report and literature review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (06) 885-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brkic FF, Umihanic S, Harcinovic A, Piric L, Brkic F. High electrode impedance values in pediatric cochlear implant recipients may imply insufficient auditory and language skills development. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (02) 506 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9020506.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Xi X, Han D, Huang D, Yang W, Hong M. [A longitudinal study of electrode impedance in nucleus 24M cochlear implant users]. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 2003; 17 (10) 593-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hu H-C, Chen JK-C, Tsai C-M, Chen H-Y, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Evolution of impedance field telemetry after one day of activation in cochlear implant recipients. Zeng F-G, ed. PLoS ONE 2017; 12 (03) e0173367 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173367.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chen JK-C, Chuang AY-C, Sprinzl GM, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. Malmierca MS, ed. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (08) e71929 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071929.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Newbold C, Richardson R, Huang CQ, Milojevic D, Cowan R, Shepherd R. An in vitro model for investigating impedance changes with cell growth and electrical stimulation: implications for cochlear implants. J Neural Eng 2004; 1 (04) 218-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zadrozniak M, Szymański M, Siwiec H, Broda T. Zmiany impedancji elektrod u uzytkowników implantów ślimakowych [Impedance changes in cochlear implant users]. Otolaryngol Pol 2011; 65 (03) 214-217 DOI: 10.1016/S0030-6657(11)70678-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Saoji AA, Adkins WJ, Graham MK, Carlson ML. Does early activation within hours after cochlear implant surgery influence electrode impedances?. Int J Audiol 2021; •••: 1-6 ; Epub ahead of print DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2021.1942569.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R. Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2017; 37 (04) 312-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Foggia MJ, Quevedo RV, Hansen MR. Intracochlear fibrosis and the foreign body response to cochlear implant biomaterials. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2019; 4 (06) 678-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nadol Jr JB, Shiao JY, Burgess BJ. et al. Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001; 110 (09) 883-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Hildesheimer M, Muchnik C. Electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Med-El Combi 40+ cochlear implant: a one year follow-up. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2005; 16 (2-3): 127-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lin DP-Y, Chen JK-C, Tung T-H, Li LP-H. Differences in the impedance of cochlear implant devices within 24 hours of their implantation. Ashley SW, ed. PLoS ONE 2019; 14 (09) e0222711 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222711.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Briggs R, O'Leary S, Birman C. et al. Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res 2020; 390: 107924 DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107924.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Needham K, Stathopoulos D, Newbold C. et al. Electrode impedance changes after implantation of a dexamethasone-eluting intracochlear array. Cochlear Implants Int 2020; 21 (02) 98-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Luryi AL, Tower JI, Preston J, Burkland A, Trueheart CE, Hildrew DM. Cochlear implant mapping through telemedicine-a feasibility study. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (03) e330-e333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar