Literature DB >> 22436408

Electrophysiological properties of cochlear implantation in the gerbil using a flexible array.

Christine DeMason1, Baishakhi Choudhury, Faisal Ahmad, Douglas C Fitzpatrick, Jacob Wang, Craig A Buchman, Oliver F Adunka.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implants (CI) perform especially well if residual acoustic hearing is retained and combined with the CI in the same ear (also termed hybrid or electric-acoustic stimulation). However, in most CI patients, residual hearing is at least partially compromised during surgery, and in some it is lost completely. At present, clinicians have no feedback on the functional status of the cochlea during electrode insertion. Development of an intraoperative physiological recording algorithm during electrode insertion could serve to detect reversible cochlear trauma and optimal placement relative to surviving hair cells. In this report, an animal model was used to assist in determining physiological markers for these conditions using a flexible electrode similar to human surgery.
DESIGN: The animal model was the normal-hearing gerbil. The flexible electrodes had 1 to 2 platinum-iridium contacts embedded in a 200 µm diameter silastic carrier. As control experiments some insertions were also made with much smaller (50 µm diameter) rigid electrodes. In either case, the electrode was positioned at or just inside the round window membrane and subsequently advanced into the scala tympani longitudinally in 50 to 100 µm increments. After each advancement, acoustic stimulation was used to elicit a cochlear microphonic (CM) and compound action potential (CAP). Stimuli were suprathreshold tone bursts of 1 to 16 kHz in octave steps with 2 msec rise and fall times and a 10 msec plateau. Anatomical integrity of the cochlea was subsequently assessed using a whole-mount preparation.
RESULTS: In contrast with the CAP, which was relatively stable during insertion, the CM showed a variety of changes related to electrode movement. To tone bursts of 1 to 8 kHz the CM typically remained stable or increased during the insertion before contact with cochlear structures. After contact, the potentials often dropped dramatically. The CM to 16 kHz was the most variable; in some cases it increased but in other cases it decreased early in the insertion and later showed large and abrupt increases. In some instances, this pattern was seen to progressively lower frequencies as well. Histological analysis and the gerbil frequency map indicate that electrode travel was limited to the basal turn (~4 mm from the hook) and did not intrude into the characteristic frequency regions of most frequencies used.
CONCLUSIONS: First, the CM provides a more sensitive indication of cochlear trauma than does the CAP. Second, stable or steady increases in the CM are a physiological marker for unimpeded travel through the scala tympani as the electrode approaches responding hair cells. Third, abrupt reductions in the CM across frequency are a physiological marker of contact with cochlear structures. Fourth, abrupt increases after a decline, which occurred primarily to 16 kHz but to a lesser degree to other frequencies as well, are a physiological marker for a release from contact. The interpretation is that as the tip of the electrode bends the shaft can move in the mediolateral dimension, sometimes contacting the basilar membrane and sometimes not. Overall, the results indicate that recordings during cochlear implantations can provide valuable feedback to the surgeon regarding electrode position and the integrity of surviving hair cells.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22436408      PMCID: PMC3613224          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182498c28

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  28 in total

1.  Cochlear fluid space dimensions for six species derived from reconstructions of three-dimensional magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  M Thorne; A N Salt; J E DeMott; M M Henson; O W Henson; S L Gewalt
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results.

Authors:  Ingeborg Hochmair; Wolfgang Arnold; Peter Nopp; Claude Jolly; Joachim Müller; Peter Roland
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.494

3.  Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher Turner; Kate E Gfeller; Mary W Lowder
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss.

Authors:  C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.538

5.  Detection of intracochlear damage with cochlear implantation in a gerbil model of hearing loss.

Authors:  Baishakhi Choudhury; Oliver Franz Adunka; Christine E Demason; Faisal I Ahmad; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Comparison of sound-transmission and cochlear-microphonic characteristics in Mongolian gerbil and guinea pig.

Authors:  R A Schmiedt; J J Zwislocki
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The cochlear place-frequency map of the adult and developing Mongolian gerbil.

Authors:  M Müller
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Cochlear implantation in patients with substantial residual hearing.

Authors:  Robert D Cullen; Carol Higgins; Emily Buss; Marcia Clark; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Oliver Adunka; Jan Kiefer; Marc H Unkelbach; Thomas Lehnert; Wolfgang Gstoettner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Wolfgang Gstoettner; Jan Kiefer; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Stefan Pok; Silke Peters; Oliver Adunka
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

View more
  14 in total

1.  Relationship Between Intraoperative Electrocochleography and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Response Changes During Insertion of a Cochlear Implant Using Extracochlear Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Christopher K Giardina; Tatyana E Khan; Stephen H Pulver; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Round window electrocochleography before and after cochlear implant electrode insertion.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Christopher K Giardina; Eric J Formeister; Baishakhi Choudhury; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Electrophysiologic consequences of flexible electrode insertions in gerbils with noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  Baishakhi Choudhury; Oliver Franz Adunka; Omar Awan; John Maxwell Pike; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Response Patterns During Cochlear Implantation and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher K Giardina; Kevin D Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kendall A Hutson; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Rachael L Carroll; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Light sheet microscopy of the gerbil cochlea.

Authors:  Kendall A Hutson; Stephen H Pulver; Pablo Ariel; Caroline Naso; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.215

8.  Assessment of Cochlear Function during Cochlear Implantation by Extra- and Intracochlear Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Adrian Dalbert; Flurin Pfiffner; Marco Hoesli; Kanthaiah Koka; Dorothe Veraguth; Christof Roosli; Alexander Huber
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Intracochlear Recordings of Acoustically and Electrically Evoked Potentials in Nucleus Hybrid L24 Cochlear Implant Users and Their Relationship to Speech Perception.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Viral D Tejani; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Cochlear Implantation in the Guinea Pig.

Authors:  Clemens Honeder; Navid Ahmadi; Anne-Margarethe Kramer; Chengjing Zhu; Nodir Saidov; Christoph Arnoldner
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 1.355

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.