HYPOTHESIS: Flexible electrode interaction with intracochlear structures in a noise-damaged region of the cochlea can lead to measureable electrophysiologic changes. BACKGROUND: An emerging goal in cochlear implantation is preservation of residual hearing subsequently allowing for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). However, residual hearing is at least partially lost in most patients as a result of electrode insertion. A gerbil model was used to examine changes to acoustically evoked cochlear potentials during simulated cochlear implantation. METHODS: Gerbils were partially deafened by noise exposure to mimic residual hearing in human cochlear implant candidates. After 1 month, round window and intracochlear recordings during flexible electrode insertion were made in response to 1 kHz tone burst stimuli at 80 dB SPL. After the insertion, the cochleas were histologically examined for hair cell loss because of the noise exposure and trauma because of the electrode insertion. RESULTS: Anatomic damage from the flexible electrode was not observable in most cases. However, insertions caused response declines that were, on average, greater than the controls, although some losses were similar to the controls. The CM was more sensitive than the CAP for detecting cochlear disturbance. CONCLUSION: Because response reductions occurred in the absence of anatomic damage, disturbances in the fluid at the base appear to affect responses from the apex. The losses were less than in previous experiments where the basilar membrane was penetrated.
HYPOTHESIS: Flexible electrode interaction with intracochlear structures in a noise-damaged region of the cochlea can lead to measureable electrophysiologic changes. BACKGROUND: An emerging goal in cochlear implantation is preservation of residual hearing subsequently allowing for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). However, residual hearing is at least partially lost in most patients as a result of electrode insertion. A gerbil model was used to examine changes to acoustically evoked cochlear potentials during simulated cochlear implantation. METHODS: Gerbils were partially deafened by noise exposure to mimic residual hearing in human cochlear implant candidates. After 1 month, round window and intracochlear recordings during flexible electrode insertion were made in response to 1 kHz tone burst stimuli at 80 dB SPL. After the insertion, the cochleas were histologically examined for hair cell loss because of the noise exposure and trauma because of the electrode insertion. RESULTS: Anatomic damage from the flexible electrode was not observable in most cases. However, insertions caused response declines that were, on average, greater than the controls, although some losses were similar to the controls. The CM was more sensitive than the CAP for detecting cochlear disturbance. CONCLUSION: Because response reductions occurred in the absence of anatomic damage, disturbances in the fluid at the base appear to affect responses from the apex. The losses were less than in previous experiments where the basilar membrane was penetrated.
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
Authors: Christine DeMason; Baishakhi Choudhury; Faisal Ahmad; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Jacob Wang; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Oliver F Adunka; Stefan Mlot; Thomas A Suberman; Adam P Campbell; Joshua Surowitz; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: Adam P Campbell; Thomas A Suberman; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Adam P Campbell; Thomas A Suberman; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Thomas A Suberman; Adam P Campbell; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Joseph P Roche; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Baishakhi Choudhury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Craig A Buchman; Benjamin P Wei; Margaret T Dillon; Shuman He; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: William C Scott; Christopher K Giardina; Andrew K Pappa; Tatyana E Fontenot; Meredith L Anderson; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Mathieu Forgues; Heather A Koehn; Askia K Dunnon; Stephen H Pulver; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: José Santos Cruz de Andrade; Peter Baumhoff; Oswaldo Laércio Mendonça Cruz; Thomas Lenarz; Andrej Kral Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-09-20
Authors: Clemens Honeder; Lukas David Landegger; Elisabeth Engleder; Franz Gabor; Roberto Plasenzotti; Hanns Plenk; Alexandra Kaider; Lena Hirtler; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Christoph Arnoldner Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 1.494