A comparison of round-window and transtympanic promontory electric stimulation in cochlear implant candidates.
We compared within-subjects electrical thresholds and dynamic ranges obtained with direct round-window and transtympanic promontory stimulation carried out preoperatively in 12 patients who were candidates for a cochlear implant. Square waves with frequencies of 50, 100, 200, and 400 Hz were delivered in a 50% duty cycle to both sites in each patient. With the exception of threshold at 50 Hz (promontory thresholds were lower than round-window thresholds), there were no statistically significant differences for either thresholds or dynamic ranges between the two sites of stimulation. There was a general trend for round-window thresholds to be lower and dynamic ranges larger, especially for the higher frequencies of stimulation. Mean threshold slopes for the two sites of stimulation were nearly identical.
Kileny
P R
PR
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Zwolan
T A
TA
Zimmerman-Phillips
S
S
Kemink
J L
JL
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D003051:Cochlea / Q000503:physiopathology; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D004558:Electric Stimulation; D004566:Electrodes; D005260:Female; D006312:Hearing Loss, Bilateral; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012405:Round Window, Ear; D014432:Tympanic Membrane