Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation according to types of Nucleus 24-channel electrode arrays
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2026
Enhanced Cochlear Coverage and Hearing Preservation in High-Frequency Hearing Loss via Electric Acoustic Stimulation with Longer Electrode
Published on: October 11, 2024
Joong Ho Ahn1, Soo Hee Oh, Jong Woo Chung
1Department of Otolaryngology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Conclusion:
In this study, we concluded that electrode design and location did not have a high level of influence on the prevalence of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in normal cochleae.
Objective:
To analysis the prevalence of FNS after cochlear implantation with Nucleus 24-channel devices according to types of electrodes arrays.
Patients And Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed medical and mapping records of 394 patients who received cochlear implants (CIs) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation from April 1999 to March 2007.
Results:
In all, 23 of 394 (5.8%) patients had FNS (CI24M 4 of 39 [10.3%], CI24RCS 9 of 192 [4.7%], CI24RST 9 of 21 [42.9%], and CI24RECA 1 of 87 [1.1%]). In addition, 4 of 324 (1.2%) patients with normal cochleae complained of FNS (CI24M 1 of 33 [3.0%], CI24RCS 2 of 173 [1.2%], and CI24RECA 1 of 71 [1.4%]). There was no difference between straight and perimodiolar electrode arrays in patients with normal cochleae. In addition, when comparing two types of Contour electrodes, Contour Advance (soft-tip) electrodes offered significantly lower incidence of FNS than Contour electrode arrays. We could manage these patients with methods such as decrease of C-level, selective channel turning off, and changes of mapping strategies.
