title: Stimulation parameters differ between current anti-modiolar and peri-modiolar electrode arrays implanted within the same child.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare stimulation parameters of peri-modiolar and anti-modiolar electrode arrays using two surgical approaches.
  
  
  METHODS
  Impedance, stimulation thresholds, comfortably loud current levels, electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds were compared between 2 arrays implanted in the same child at 5 time points: surgery, activation/day 1, week 1, and months 1 and 3. The peri-modiolar array was implanted via cochleostomy in all children (n = 64), while the anti-modiolar array was inserted via a cochleostomy in 43 children and via the round window in 21 children.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The anti-modiolar array had significantly lower impedance, but required higher current levels to elicit thresholds, comfort, electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds than the peri-modiolar array across all time points, particularly in basal electrodes (p < 0.05). The prevalence of open electrodes was similar in anti-modiolar (n = 5) and peri-modiolar (n = 3) arrays.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Significant but clinically acceptable differences in stimulation parameters between peri-modiolar and anti-modiolar arrays persisted four months after surgery in children using bilateral cochlear implants. The surgical approach used to insert the anti-modiolar array had no overall effect on outcomes.
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Polonenko
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: S L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Cushing
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: K A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Gordon
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Allemang
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Jewell
authors.affiliation: Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory,Department of Otolaryngology,Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Canada.
authors.forename: B C
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Papsin
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000293:Adolescent; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003051:Cochlea / Q000601:surgery; D019929:Cochlear Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D017097:Electric Impedance; D005072:Evoked Potentials, Auditory; D005260:Female; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012405:Round Window, Ear / Q000601:surgery; D013198:Stapedius / Q000503:physiopathology; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Cochlear Implant; Electric Stimulation; Electrode; Prosthesis Fitting