Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 5, 2026
Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access
Published on: June 16, 2022
Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and
Octavio Garaycochea1,2, Raquel Manrique-Huarte3,4, Carlos Lazaro5
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Purpose:
To compare the surgical and audiological outcomes with two perimodiolar electrode arrays (Nucleus 512-Contour Advance® y Nucleus 532-Slim Perimodiolar®) and a straight electrode array (Nucleus 422/522).
Methods:
Patients were retrospectively selected from our cochlear implant program database. Only patients with a history of bilateral, sensorineural postlingually profound hearing loss who underwent cochlear implant surgery with either a N512, a N532 or a N422 were included. Throughout a year of follow-up, pure tone audiometry (PTA), speech perception, Impedances and T-C Thresholds levels were analyzed. Surgical data were also analyzed.
Results:
66 patients were included (19-CI532, 20-CI512 and 27-CI422). The most common type of cochlea access with the N532, N512 and N422 was through an extended round window, a promontorial cochleostomy and a pure round window, respectively. No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition. No significant differences were seen in the levels of hearing preservation at frequencies of 250 and 500. The average values of the impedances were significantly higher in the CI group N532 and N422 than in the N512. The mean values of the T and C levels were significantly lower in the CI groups N532 and N422 compared with the N512.
Conclusions:
No significant differences were observed after 12 months in Mean PTA and Speech recognition; however, a faster acquisition of auditory results were observed in the group of patients treated with the CI N532. The type of electrode array influences in the type of cochleostomy.
