Cochlear implant insertion should be as least traumatic as possible in order to reduce trauma to the cochlear sensory structures. The force applied to the cochlea during array insertion should be controlled to limit insertion-related damage. The relationship between insertion force and histological traumatism remains to be demonstrated. Twelve freshly frozen cadaveric temporal bones were implanted with a long straight electrodes array through an anterior extended round window insertion using a motorized insertion tool with real-time measurement of the insertion force. Anatomical parameters, measured on a pre-implantation cone beam CT scan, position of the array and force metrics were correlated with post-implantation scanning electron microscopy images and histological damage assessment. An atraumatic insertion occurred in six cochleae, a translocation in five cochleae and a basilar membrane rupture in one cochlea. The translocation always occurred in the 150- to 180-degree region. In the case of traumatic insertion, different force profiles were observed with a more irregular curve arising from the presence of an early peak force (30 ± 18.2 mN). This corresponded approximately to the first point of contact of the array with the lateral wall of the cochlea. Atraumatic and traumatic insertions had significantly different force values at the same depth of insertion (p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA), and significantly different regression lines (y = 1.34x + 0.7 for atraumatic and y = 3.37x + 0.84 for traumatic insertion, p < 0.001, ANCOVA). In the present study, the insertion force was correlated with the intracochlear trauma. The 150- to 180-degree region represented the area at risk for scalar translocation for this straight electrodes array. Insertion force curves with different sets of values were identified for traumatic and atraumatic insertions; these values should be considered during motorized insertion of an implant so as to be able to modify the insertion parameters (e.g axis of insertion) and facilitate preservation of endocochlear structures.

Conclusion: Residual hearing could be preserved with various arrays ranging from 16 to 18 mm in insertion length and 0.25 to 0.5 mm tip diameter. Whether array insertion is performed through a cochleostomy or a round window, tip diameter is an essential criterion for the array design to improve hearing preservation results. Objectives: The goal of this study was to report the outcome of patients implanted with electric acoustic cochlear implants with various surgical techniques and array designs. Methods: Thirty-two implanted ears (30 patients) were included in this retrospective study. Three array models were inserted: Contour Advance implant (n = 16), Nucleus Hybrid-L (n = 12), and Med-El Flex EAS (n = 4). Postoperative pure tone audiometry was performed at 3 and 12 months after implantation. Results: Three months postoperatively, hearing preservation within 30 dB was achieved in 50%, 50%, and 84% cases of patients implanted with a Contour Advance, Flex-EAS, and Hybrid-L, respectively. Two patients (Hybrid-L group) had a delayed sudden hearing loss (> 30 dB) 3 months postoperatively and three patients (Contour Advance group) had total hearing loss at 1 year. Best results were achieved using arrays with small tip diameters. Cochleostomy or round window insertion did not affect hearing preservation results.