Alterations in the impedances usually require
re-fitting of the implant processor to adapt the programming parameters to the
new electrical conditions of the cochlea
to achieve
optimal perception from the
cochlear implant.(3)
Gijs et al 2009
assessed the electrode position in cochlear implant patients and evaluated the
extent to which the electrode position is determinative in the
electrophysiological functioning of the cochlear implant system; they concluded
that the electrode modiolus distance is of importance to the stimulation of the
auditory nerve fibers.(1)
There have been few reports
of electrode impedance changes over time after implantation, these reports were
limited to only Nucleus and Clarion types of cochlear implant systems, no
reports were reported of electrode changes for the Medel type over a long
interval of time. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the
electrode impedance changes over time for the Combi-40+ Medel type which has
been launched at King Hussein Medical Center
since 2004 and 2007.
Method
A retrospective medical
record review of electrode impedance values was used to gather data for the
present study. Electrode impedance was measured at intervals: intra operatively,
and post operatively at intervals of one month, 3 months, 9 months, 1 year, 2
years and 3 years.
Subjects
Twenty-four pre-lingual
children, who received the Combi-40+ Medel cochlear implant system at King
Hussein Medical Centre between 2004 and 2007, and used the implant for minimal
period of 3 years, were included in the study. All patients had full insertion of their electrode array
without any surgical complications.
Electrode impedance
Electrode impedance
measurements were performed using the diagnostic and programming system
diagnostic interface box (DIB). The standard clinical method for recording
impedances using the telemetry system for the Medel Combi 40 + was used. In the
present study the extra-cochlear and intra-cochlear electrodes were used for
the analysis. Stimuli were charged balance bi-phasic current pulses presented
at 250 pulses per second at a current level of 100 clinical units. The
impedances were measured at the end of the bi-phasic pulse.
Results
Table I shows the
means and standard deviations of electrode impedances over different interval
of time for the 24 patients.
Table I shows
also that there was an increase in the means of electrode impedances between one
month and 3 months post operatively compared to the intra operative means for
all electrodes. After one year the means of electrode impedances decreased for
all electrodes and stabilized thereafter for the apical and medial segment except the mean of the basal segment which increased after one year and 3 years.
Table II.
The means and Standard deviations of Cochlear segments
Cochlear segment
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Apical
|
24.25
|
4.38
|
Medial
|
23.28
|
4.23
|
Basal
|
31.04
|
12.33
|
Data analysis
One-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons analysis of variance for repeated measures
with seven levels of time intervals (Intra
–operatively, 1month, 3months, 9 months, 1 year, 2years and 3 years post operatively)
was performed for electrode impedance changes and cochlear segment (apical,
medial, and basal). Alpha error level
was P < 0.05.
Significant differences in
electrode impedance were found among different time intervals; overall there
were significant differences in the first 4 electrodes which represent the
apical segment of cochlea, and the electrodes from 5 to 9 which represent the
medial segment of the cochlea: differences
were from the intra operative and at one and 3 months visit. The means of the
electrode impedances in the first visit and 3 months visit after implantation
were significantly higher than the intra operative. At one year interval there
was a decrease in the means of the electrode impedances and thereafter a
stabilization of impedances was evident.
For the basal segment of the
cochlea represented by electrodes from 9 to 12 electrodes a significant increase
in electrode impedance values from intra operative to one month and 3 months
visit was evident. Similarly at 1 year post operatively an increase in the
impedance values was evident and stabilization thereafter was found.
The results of the present
study showed that there were significant differences among the cochlear segments
over time with additional differences between the (apical, medial) and basal
segments; the impedance values for the basal segments was higher than that for
the apical and medial segments; however, no significant differences between
apical and medial segments were found as shown in Table II.
Discussion
The results of the present
study indicated that electrode impedance
changed significantly during
the first 3 months after surgery and after one year of
insertion stabilization was evident for the apical and medial segment of the
cochlea, in contrast stabilization for the basal was evident after 1 year. The
increase in the first 3 months of cochlear implant use compared to the intra operative
measurements may reflect the anatomical and physiological status of the cochlea.
This increase in impedances values may be explained by the presence of intra
cochlear fibrous tissue and new bone growth in the cochlea.
After 3 months of cochlear
use the impedance decreased and this decrease may be attributed to the notion
that stimulation of electrodes results in the formation of a hybrid layer on
the surface of the electrode, which creates a rougher, uneven surface resulting
in lower electrode impedance.(4)
There were significant
differences among the cochlear segments; the mean impedance values for the
apical and medial segments were significantly lower than the basal segment and
this may be due to the electrode distance.
The results of the present
study are in contrast to the results of the study carried out by Saniz et al,(3)
who
reported that the impedances values are high during the first period after implantation,
and during the first month there is a fast decrement in the impedances, the
impedances reach stabilization after 4 or 5 months.
The results of the present
study are in contrast to the results obtained by Aronson et al 2002.(5) He performed a longitudinal telemetric
measurements in children implanted with the Combi 40+ systems from the first
fitting and every three months up to 24 months of using the system. His data
indicated an impedance decrease in the first 3 to 4 months after the switch on
and then values remained stable.
Henkin et al 2005,(6)
recorded changes in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance
values in children using the MED-EL Combi 40+ cochlear implant during the first
12 months of implant use and he found decreased impedances values. Values
decreased from initial stimulation to the 3 month time point and was, stable through
the study follow up.
The differences between the
results of the present study and the results obtained by previous studies may be
attributed to the notion that stimulation of electrodes results in the
formation of a hybrid layer on the surface of the electrode, which creates a
rougher, uneven surface resulting in lower electrode impedance and may be due to
the absence of intra cochlear fibrous tissue and new bone growth in the
cochlea, and may be due to the inflammatory process which may result in
increasing the impedances values.
In comparing these results
of impedances changes for the Medel type with reported results of other previous
studies carried out for other cochlear implant systems, we have found that there were differences in the impedances values between
the Medel type and other cochlear system such as Nucleus and Clarion. For the
Nucleus 24 M the impedance values decreased significantly from connection to
the 1-month visit, thereafter a stabilization of values was evident.(7)
For the Clarion cochlear implant system the impedances value decreased
significantly from connection to the 3-month visit , thereafter a stabilization
of values was evident.(8) The differences between the electrode
impedance changes for the Medel type and other types may be due to the mode of
stimulation used and number of electrodes stimulated; for the Medel type the
number was 12 electrodes whereas for the Nucleus and Clarion types the number
of electrodes was 22, in addition to
that the differences may be due to the electrode surface area.(3)
Other factors which may explain
the differences among the available
cochlear implant devices is the electrode design for example, the number of
electrodes and electrode configuration; which may be monopolar or bipolar; the Nucleus
devices uses 22 electrodes spaced 0.75 mm apart. Electrodes that are 1.5 mm
apart are used as bipolar pairs. The Clarion device provides both monopolar and
bipolar configurations. Eight electrodes are used which are spaced 2 mm apart.
The Mede-El device uses eight electrodes spaced 2.8 mm apart in monopolar
configuration.(9)
The value of electrode
impedance varied with time after surgery and these results are consistent with
the hypothesis that a layer of fibrous tissue forms around the electrode within
the cochlear canal resulting in a slow increase of access resistance, whereas a
layer of proteins builds up on the surface of electrode in the early phase
after implantation. Electrical stimulation appears to disperse this surface
layer, thereby reducing both the polarization impedance and electrode
impedance.(10)
The differences among the
apical, medial and basal cochlear segments may be due to the distance between
the basal electrodes and the auditory nerve fibers; the apical and medial
electrodes are very close to the auditory nerve fibers whereas the basal
segment is far away therefore, the resistivity of different cochlear structures
such as the cochlear wall and the modiolus at several sites along the cochlea
may have influences on the variation of electrode impedance values, in addition
to that the effect of tissue hydration which changes the tissue sensitivity.(11)
Conclusion
We conclude that the
impedance values may change over time and thus must be observed for many
reasons such as the inflammatory process, changes in the biological tissues and
the formation of new bone growth. In some cases which were excluded from the
present study the reason behind increase of impedance was due to the impact on
the electrodes due to trauma. Therefore it is very important to measure the
electrode impedances, before any programming sessions as long as the cochlear implant
is in use because alterations in the impedances usually require refitting of
the implant processor to adapt the programming parameters to the new electrical
conditions of the cochlea to achieve optimal perception from the cochlear implant.
References
1.Gijs KA,Wermeskerken GKA, Olphen AF, et al. Imaging of
electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266(10): 1527-1531.
2.Wermeskerken GKA, 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. Inte J Aud. 2006; 45:537-544.
3. Sainz M, Roldan C, Torre A, et al. Transitory
alterations of the electrode impedances in cochlear implants associated to
middle and inner ear diseases. International Congress Series.
2003; 1240: 407- 410.
4. Neurburger J, Lenarz T, Lesinski Schiedat A, et al. Sponataneous
increases in impedance following cochlear implantation: suspected causes and
management. Inter J Audio .2009; 48(5):233-239.
5. Aronson L, Milone BD,
Estienne P. Correlation between the impedance values
and behavioral levels of stimulation in children with the MED-EL system. Proceedings of the 7th
International Cochlear Implant Conference Departmento
Implantee coclear fundacio’n Arauz. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
September 2002.
6.Henkin Y, Neeman R K, Kronenberg J, et al. 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.
7.Henkin Y, Neeman RK, Muchnik C, et al. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and
electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant.
Inter J Ped Otorhinolaryngol 2003; 67: 873-880.
8. Henkin Y, Neeman RK, Kronenberg J, et al. A longitudinal
study of electrical
stimulation levels and electrode
impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant. Acta
Otolaryngol 2006; 126, (6): 581-586.
9. Philipos C. Loizou,
Introduction to cochlear implants. Mimicking the Human Ear 1998; 15(5): 101-130.
10.Tykocinski M, Cohen AJ, Cowan
RS. Measurements and analysis of
access resistance and polarization impedance
in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurot 2005; 26: 948-956.
11.Kumar G, Chokshi M, Richter
CP. Electrical impedance measurements
of cochlear structures using the four electrode reflection-coefficient
technique. Hear Rese 2010: 259; 86-94.