HYPOTHESIS: Utilizing the cochlear implant to record electrophysiologic responses during device placement is a feasible and efficacious technique for monitoring near real-time cochlear physiology during and following electrode insertion. BACKGROUND: Minimizing intracochlear trauma during cochlear implantation has emerged as a highly researched area to help improve patient performance. Currently, conventional cochlear implant technology allows for the recording of electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAPs). Acoustically evoked potentials may be more sensitive in detecting physiologic changes occurring as a result of electrode insertion. Electrocochleography obtained from within the cochlea allows hair cell and neural response monitoring along the cochlear spiral at locations where changes most likely would occur. METHODS: Intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) was recorded from the cochlear implant during surgery in 14 subjects. A long acquisition time (54.5 ms), capable of measuring potentials from the low frequency-serving apical region of the cochlea (125 and 500 Hz) was employed. Two distinct intracochlear processing methods were used and compared in obtaining electrophysiologic data. RESULTS: Measureable intracochlear ECochG responses were obtained from all 14 participants. The 1st harmonic distortions (cochlear microphonic and auditory nerve neurophonic) generally increased steadily with electrode insertion. Electrode and frequency scan following insertion revealed that response amplitude varied based on location of recording electrode and frequency of stimulation. Exquisite sensitivity to manipulation during round window muscle packing was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Intracochlear ECochG recorded from the electrode array of the cochlear implant is a highly feasible technique that sheds light on cochlear micromechanics during cochlear implant electrode placement.
HYPOTHESIS: Utilizing the cochlear implant to record electrophysiologic responses during device placement is a feasible and efficacious technique for monitoring near real-time cochlear physiology during and following electrode insertion. BACKGROUND: Minimizing intracochlear trauma during cochlear implantation has emerged as a highly researched area to help improve patient performance. Currently, conventional cochlear implant technology allows for the recording of electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAPs). Acoustically evoked potentials may be more sensitive in detecting physiologic changes occurring as a result of electrode insertion. Electrocochleography obtained from within the cochlea allows hair cell and neural response monitoring along the cochlear spiral at locations where changes most likely would occur. METHODS: Intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) was recorded from the cochlear implant during surgery in 14 subjects. A long acquisition time (54.5 ms), capable of measuring potentials from the low frequency-serving apical region of the cochlea (125 and 500 Hz) was employed. Two distinct intracochlear processing methods were used and compared in obtaining electrophysiologic data. RESULTS: Measureable intracochlear ECochG responses were obtained from all 14 participants. The 1st harmonic distortions (cochlear microphonic and auditory nerve neurophonic) generally increased steadily with electrode insertion. Electrode and frequency scan following insertion revealed that response amplitude varied based on location of recording electrode and frequency of stimulation. Exquisite sensitivity to manipulation during round window muscle packing was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Intracochlear ECochG recorded from the electrode array of the cochlear implant is a highly feasible technique that sheds light on cochlear micromechanics during cochlear implant electrode placement.
Authors: Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Christopher K Giardina; Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan T Holder; Robert T Dwyer; Kanthaiah Koka; Robert F Labadie; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.311
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: 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
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: Tatyana Elizabeth Fontenot; Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Margaret Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Holly F Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin David Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.570
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