Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation

Jennifer L. Smullen, Marek Polak, Annelle V. Hodges, Stacy B. Payne, Fred F Telischi, Thomas J. Balkany

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study was designed to compare the incidence and nature of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in patients receiving cochlear implants (CI) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation, Advanced Bionics Corporation, and MedEl. Study Design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary referral center. Methods: The charts of 600 patients who received CIs from 1993 to 2003 with at least 1 year of follow-up were reviewed for significant FNS (FNS on at least 1 channel at functional stimulation levels). Data collected included age, sex, etiology of deafness, device type, electrode, FNS onset after initial stimulation, number and location of electrode contacts causing FNS, and loudness level at which FSN occurred. Nucleus straight and perimodiolar electrodes were also compared. Results: Thirty-nine of 600 (6.5%) patients had FNS on at least one channel, (MedEl 3 of 43 [7.0%], Nucleus 29 of 440 [6.6%], and Clarion 7 of 117 [6.0%]). The incidence of FNS in Nucleus perimodiolar electrodes (16 of 250 [6.4%]) was similar to straight electrodes (13 of 190 [6.8%]), as was the mean number of electrodes causing FNS per patient (11 vs. 12). However, straight electrodes caused stimulation at significantly softer perceived loudness levels than perimodiolar electrodes (P < .0001). Conclusions: In this large series of CI FNS, the overall incidence of FNS is consistent with previous reports. All devices had a similar incidence of FNS, but perimodiolar electrodes produced FNS only at significantly higher loudness levels than straight electrodes, making them preferable for patients at risk for FNS receiving Nucleus devices.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)977-982
Number of pages6
JournalLaryngoscope
Volume115
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2005

Fingerprint

Cochlear Implantation
Facial Nerve
Electrodes
Cochlear Implants
Incidence
Equipment and Supplies
Bionics
Cochlea
Deafness
Tertiary Care Centers

Keywords

  • Advanced Bionics Corporation
  • Clarion
  • Cochlear Corporation
  • Cochlear implant
  • Deafness
  • Facial nerve stimulation
  • HL
  • MedEl
  • Nucleus
  • Otosclerosis
  • Perimodiolar electrodes
  • Straight electrodes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Smullen, J. L., Polak, M., Hodges, A. V., Payne, S. B., Telischi, F. F., & Balkany, T. J. (2005). Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope, 115(6), 977-982. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6

Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. / Smullen, Jennifer L.; Polak, Marek; Hodges, Annelle V.; Payne, Stacy B.; Telischi, Fred F; Balkany, Thomas J.

In: Laryngoscope, Vol. 115, No. 6, 01.06.2005, p. 977-982.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smullen, JL, Polak, M, Hodges, AV, Payne, SB, Telischi, FF & Balkany, TJ 2005, 'Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation', Laryngoscope, vol. 115, no. 6, pp. 977-982. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6
Smullen JL, Polak M, Hodges AV, Payne SB, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ. Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope. 2005 Jun 1;115(6):977-982. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6
Smullen, Jennifer L. ; Polak, Marek ; Hodges, Annelle V. ; Payne, Stacy B. ; Telischi, Fred F ; Balkany, Thomas J. / Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation. In: Laryngoscope. 2005 ; Vol. 115, No. 6. pp. 977-982.
@article{21790987a8864391b198cd509d59c645,
title = "Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation",
abstract = "Objectives: This study was designed to compare the incidence and nature of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in patients receiving cochlear implants (CI) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation, Advanced Bionics Corporation, and MedEl. Study Design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary referral center. Methods: The charts of 600 patients who received CIs from 1993 to 2003 with at least 1 year of follow-up were reviewed for significant FNS (FNS on at least 1 channel at functional stimulation levels). Data collected included age, sex, etiology of deafness, device type, electrode, FNS onset after initial stimulation, number and location of electrode contacts causing FNS, and loudness level at which FSN occurred. Nucleus straight and perimodiolar electrodes were also compared. Results: Thirty-nine of 600 (6.5{\%}) patients had FNS on at least one channel, (MedEl 3 of 43 [7.0{\%}], Nucleus 29 of 440 [6.6{\%}], and Clarion 7 of 117 [6.0{\%}]). The incidence of FNS in Nucleus perimodiolar electrodes (16 of 250 [6.4{\%}]) was similar to straight electrodes (13 of 190 [6.8{\%}]), as was the mean number of electrodes causing FNS per patient (11 vs. 12). However, straight electrodes caused stimulation at significantly softer perceived loudness levels than perimodiolar electrodes (P < .0001). Conclusions: In this large series of CI FNS, the overall incidence of FNS is consistent with previous reports. All devices had a similar incidence of FNS, but perimodiolar electrodes produced FNS only at significantly higher loudness levels than straight electrodes, making them preferable for patients at risk for FNS receiving Nucleus devices.",
keywords = "Advanced Bionics Corporation, Clarion, Cochlear Corporation, Cochlear implant, Deafness, Facial nerve stimulation, HL, MedEl, Nucleus, Otosclerosis, Perimodiolar electrodes, Straight electrodes",
author = "Smullen, {Jennifer L.} and Marek Polak and Hodges, {Annelle V.} and Payne, {Stacy B.} and Telischi, {Fred F} and Balkany, {Thomas J.}",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6",
language = "English",
volume = "115",
pages = "977--982",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation

AU - Smullen, Jennifer L.

AU - Polak, Marek

AU - Hodges, Annelle V.

AU - Payne, Stacy B.

AU - Telischi, Fred F

AU - Balkany, Thomas J.

PY - 2005/6/1

Y1 - 2005/6/1

N2 - Objectives: This study was designed to compare the incidence and nature of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in patients receiving cochlear implants (CI) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation, Advanced Bionics Corporation, and MedEl. Study Design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary referral center. Methods: The charts of 600 patients who received CIs from 1993 to 2003 with at least 1 year of follow-up were reviewed for significant FNS (FNS on at least 1 channel at functional stimulation levels). Data collected included age, sex, etiology of deafness, device type, electrode, FNS onset after initial stimulation, number and location of electrode contacts causing FNS, and loudness level at which FSN occurred. Nucleus straight and perimodiolar electrodes were also compared. Results: Thirty-nine of 600 (6.5%) patients had FNS on at least one channel, (MedEl 3 of 43 [7.0%], Nucleus 29 of 440 [6.6%], and Clarion 7 of 117 [6.0%]). The incidence of FNS in Nucleus perimodiolar electrodes (16 of 250 [6.4%]) was similar to straight electrodes (13 of 190 [6.8%]), as was the mean number of electrodes causing FNS per patient (11 vs. 12). However, straight electrodes caused stimulation at significantly softer perceived loudness levels than perimodiolar electrodes (P < .0001). Conclusions: In this large series of CI FNS, the overall incidence of FNS is consistent with previous reports. All devices had a similar incidence of FNS, but perimodiolar electrodes produced FNS only at significantly higher loudness levels than straight electrodes, making them preferable for patients at risk for FNS receiving Nucleus devices.

AB - Objectives: This study was designed to compare the incidence and nature of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in patients receiving cochlear implants (CI) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation, Advanced Bionics Corporation, and MedEl. Study Design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary referral center. Methods: The charts of 600 patients who received CIs from 1993 to 2003 with at least 1 year of follow-up were reviewed for significant FNS (FNS on at least 1 channel at functional stimulation levels). Data collected included age, sex, etiology of deafness, device type, electrode, FNS onset after initial stimulation, number and location of electrode contacts causing FNS, and loudness level at which FSN occurred. Nucleus straight and perimodiolar electrodes were also compared. Results: Thirty-nine of 600 (6.5%) patients had FNS on at least one channel, (MedEl 3 of 43 [7.0%], Nucleus 29 of 440 [6.6%], and Clarion 7 of 117 [6.0%]). The incidence of FNS in Nucleus perimodiolar electrodes (16 of 250 [6.4%]) was similar to straight electrodes (13 of 190 [6.8%]), as was the mean number of electrodes causing FNS per patient (11 vs. 12). However, straight electrodes caused stimulation at significantly softer perceived loudness levels than perimodiolar electrodes (P < .0001). Conclusions: In this large series of CI FNS, the overall incidence of FNS is consistent with previous reports. All devices had a similar incidence of FNS, but perimodiolar electrodes produced FNS only at significantly higher loudness levels than straight electrodes, making them preferable for patients at risk for FNS receiving Nucleus devices.

KW - Advanced Bionics Corporation

KW - Clarion

KW - Cochlear Corporation

KW - Cochlear implant

KW - Deafness

KW - Facial nerve stimulation

KW - HL

KW - MedEl

KW - Nucleus

KW - Otosclerosis

KW - Perimodiolar electrodes

KW - Straight electrodes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20144365795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20144365795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6

DO - 10.1097/01.MLG.0000163100.37713.C6

M3 - Article

C2 - 15933504

AN - SCOPUS:20144365795

VL - 115

SP - 977

EP - 982

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

IS - 6

ER -