Jonathan C Kopelovich1, Lina A J Reiss, Christine P Etler, Linjing Xu, J Tyler Bertroche, Bruce J Gantz, Marlan R Hansen. 1. *Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; †Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health Science University, Portland, Oregon; and ‡Departments of Communication Sciences and Disorders and §Neurosurgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Characterize hearing loss (HL) after hearing preservation cochlear implantation and determine the association between high charge electrical stimulation (ES) and late loss of acoustic hearing. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all hearing preservation implantees at our center (n = 42) assayed HL as a function of maximum charge. We analyzed serial audiometry from 85 patients enrolled in the multicenter Hybrid S8 trial to detail the hearing loss greater than 1 month after implantation. Cochleotypic explant cultures were used to assess susceptibility to high levels of ES. RESULTS: Early HL after implantation tends to be mild and averages 12.2 dB. After activation of the Hybrid S8 device, 17 (20%) of 85 patients experienced acceleration of HL. Compared with the majority of patients who did not lose significant hearing after activation, these patients experienced more severe HL at 1 year. Five patients implanted at our center experienced acceleration of HL after high charge exposure. In patients implanted at our center, high charge was associated with late HL (Pearson 0.366, p = 0.016). In rat cochleotypic explants, high voltage ES damaged afferent nerve fibers, reflected by blebbing and a 50% reduction in the number of fibers innervating the organ of Corti. In contrast, hair cells displayed only minor differences in cell number and morphology. CONCLUSIONS: Based on clinical and in vitro data, we theorize that the combination of acoustic amplification and ES in the setting of intact hair cells and neural architecture may contribute, in part, to cochlear toxicity, perhaps by damaging the afferent innervation.
OBJECTIVE: Characterize hearing loss (HL) after hearing preservation cochlear implantation and determine the association between high charge electrical stimulation (ES) and late loss of acoustic hearing. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all hearing preservation implantees at our center (n = 42) assayed HL as a function of maximum charge. We analyzed serial audiometry from 85 patients enrolled in the multicenter Hybrid S8 trial to detail the hearing loss greater than 1 month after implantation. Cochleotypic explant cultures were used to assess susceptibility to high levels of ES. RESULTS: Early HL after implantation tends to be mild and averages 12.2 dB. After activation of the Hybrid S8 device, 17 (20%) of 85 patients experienced acceleration of HL. Compared with the majority of patients who did not lose significant hearing after activation, these patients experienced more severe HL at 1 year. Five patients implanted at our center experienced acceleration of HL after high charge exposure. In patients implanted at our center, high charge was associated with late HL (Pearson 0.366, p = 0.016). In rat cochleotypic explants, high voltage ES damaged afferent nerve fibers, reflected by blebbing and a 50% reduction in the number of fibers innervating the organ of Corti. In contrast, hair cells displayed only minor differences in cell number and morphology. CONCLUSIONS: Based on clinical and in vitro data, we theorize that the combination of acoustic amplification and ES in the setting of intact hair cells and neural architecture may contribute, in part, to cochlear toxicity, perhaps by damaging the afferent innervation.
Authors: Anne Coco; Stephanie B Epp; James B Fallon; Jin Xu; Rodney E Millard; Robert K Shepherd Journal: Hear Res Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Pamela C Roehm; Ningyong Xu; Erika A Woodson; Steven H Green; Marlan R Hansen Journal: Mol Cell Neurosci Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 4.314
Authors: Adrien A Eshraghi; Eelam Adil; Jiao He; Reid Graves; Thomas J Balkany; Thomas R Van De Water Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: S J O'Leary; P Monksfield; G Kel; T Connolly; M A Souter; A Chang; P Marovic; J S O'Leary; R Richardson; H Eastwood Journal: Hear Res Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Alex D Sweeney; Jacob B Hunter; Matthew L Carlson; Alejandro Rivas; Marc L Bennett; Rene H Gifford; Jack H Noble; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; George B Wanna Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Rachel A Scheperle; Viral D Tejani; Julia K Omtvedt; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Jacob J Oleson; Marie V Ozanne Journal: Hear Res Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Jonathan C Kopelovich; Lina A J Reiss; Jacob J Oleson; Emily S Lundt; Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Alicia M Quesnel; Hideko Heidi Nakajima; John J Rosowski; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Joseph B Nadol Journal: Hear Res Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.208