OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Previous reports have documented the feasibility of utilizing electrocochleographic (ECoG) responses to acoustic signals to assess trauma caused during cochlear implantation. The hypothesis is that intraoperative round window ECoG before and after electrode insertion will help predict postoperative hearing preservation outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Intraoperative round window ECoG responses were collected from 31 cochlear implant recipients (14 children and 17 adults) immediately prior to and just after electrode insertion. Hearing preservation was determined by postoperative changes in behavioral thresholds. RESULTS: On average, the postinsertion response was smaller than the preinsertion response by an average of 4 dB across frequencies. However, in some cases (12 of 31) the response increased after insertion. The subsequent hearing loss was greater than the acute loss in the ECoG, averaging 22 dB across the same frequency range (250-1,000 Hz). There was no correlation between the change in the ECoG response and the corresponding change in audiometric threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative ECoG is a sensitive method for detecting electrophysiologic changes during implantation but had limited prognostic value regarding hearing preservation in the current conventional cochlear implant patient population where hearing preservation was not intended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Laryngoscope, 126:1193-1200, 2016.
OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Previous reports have documented the feasibility of utilizing electrocochleographic (ECoG) responses to acoustic signals to assess trauma caused during cochlear implantation. The hypothesis is that intraoperative round window ECoG before and after electrode insertion will help predict postoperative hearing preservation outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Intraoperative round window ECoG responses were collected from 31 cochlear implant recipients (14 children and 17 adults) immediately prior to and just after electrode insertion. Hearing preservation was determined by postoperative changes in behavioral thresholds. RESULTS: On average, the postinsertion response was smaller than the preinsertion response by an average of 4 dB across frequencies. However, in some cases (12 of 31) the response increased after insertion. The subsequent hearing loss was greater than the acute loss in the ECoG, averaging 22 dB across the same frequency range (250-1,000 Hz). There was no correlation between the change in the ECoG response and the corresponding change in audiometric threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative ECoG is a sensitive method for detecting electrophysiologic changes during implantation but had limited prognostic value regarding hearing preservation in the current conventional cochlear implant patient population where hearing preservation was not intended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Laryngoscope, 126:1193-1200, 2016.
Authors: Eric J Formeister; Joseph H McClellan; William H Merwin; Claire E Iseli; Nathan H Calloway; Holly F B Teagle; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015 Mar-Apr 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: Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Adam P Campbell; Adam T Campbell; Baishakhi Choudhury; Margaret T Dillon; Margaret P Dillon; Mathieu Forgues; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-01 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: Artur Lorens; Adam Walkowiak; Marek Polak; Aleksandra Kowalczuk; Mariusz Furmanek; Henryk Skarzynski; Anita Obrycka Journal: J Int Adv Otol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.017
Authors: William J Riggs; Robert T Dwyer; Jourdan T Holder; Jameson K Mattingly; Amanda Ortmann; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Carla V Valenzuela; Brendan P O'Connell; Michael S Harris; Leonid M Litvak; Kanthaiah Koka; Craig A Buchman; Robert F Labadie; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.311
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
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
Authors: Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Elliot Samuel Krause; Kanthaiah Koka; Douglas Carl Fitzpatrick Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Kanthaiah Koka; William Jason Riggs; Robert Dwyer; Jourdan Taylor Holder; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Amanda Ortmann; Carla V Valenzuela; Jameson K Mattingly; Michael M Harris; Brendan P O'Connell; Leonid M Litvak; Oliver F Adunka; Craig Alan Buchman; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.311
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