William J Riggs1, Robert T Dwyer2, Jourdan T Holder2, Jameson K Mattingly1, Amanda Ortmann3, Jack H Noble4, Benoit M Dawant4, Carla V Valenzuela3, Brendan P O'Connell5, Michael S Harris6, Leonid M Litvak7, Kanthaiah Koka7, Craig A Buchman3, Robert F Labadie4, Oliver F Adunka1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences. 7. Research and Technology, Advanced Bionics Corp., Valencia, California.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Electrocochleography (ECochG) recorded during cochlear implant (CI) insertion from the apical electrode in conjunction with postinsertion ECochG can identify electrophysiologic differences that exist between groups with and without a translocation of the array from the scala tympani (ST) into the scala vestibuli (SV). BACKGROUND: Translocation of the CI electrode from ST into SV can limit performance postoperatively. ECochG markers of trauma may be able to aid in the ability to detect electrode array-induced trauma/scalar translocation intraoperatively. METHODS: Twenty-one adult CI patients were included. Subjects were postoperatively parsed into two groups based on analysis of postoperative imaging: 1) ST (n = 14) insertion; 2) SV (n = 7) insertion, indicating translocation of the electrode. The ECochG response elicited from a 500 Hz acoustic stimulus was recorded from the lead electrode during insertion when the distal electrode marker was at the round window, and was compared to the response recorded from a basal electrode (e13) after complete insertion. RESULTS: No statistically significant change in mean ECochG magnitude was found in either group between recording intervals. There was a mean loss of preoperative pure-tone average of 52% for the nontranslocation group and 94% for the translocation group. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative intracochlear ECochG through the CI array provides a unique opportunity to explore the impact of the CI electrode on the inner ear. Specifically, a translocation of the array from ST to SV does not seem to change the biomechanics of the cochlear region that lies basal to the area of translocation in the acute period.
HYPOTHESIS: Electrocochleography (ECochG) recorded during cochlear implant (CI) insertion from the apical electrode in conjunction with postinsertion ECochG can identify electrophysiologic differences that exist between groups with and without a translocation of the array from the scala tympani (ST) into the scala vestibuli (SV). BACKGROUND: Translocation of the CI electrode from ST into SV can limit performance postoperatively. ECochG markers of trauma may be able to aid in the ability to detect electrode array-induced trauma/scalar translocation intraoperatively. METHODS: Twenty-one adult CI patients were included. Subjects were postoperatively parsed into two groups based on analysis of postoperative imaging: 1) ST (n = 14) insertion; 2) SV (n = 7) insertion, indicating translocation of the electrode. The ECochG response elicited from a 500 Hz acoustic stimulus was recorded from the lead electrode during insertion when the distal electrode marker was at the round window, and was compared to the response recorded from a basal electrode (e13) after complete insertion. RESULTS: No statistically significant change in mean ECochG magnitude was found in either group between recording intervals. There was a mean loss of preoperative pure-tone average of 52% for the nontranslocation group and 94% for the translocation group. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative intracochlear ECochG through the CI array provides a unique opportunity to explore the impact of the CI electrode on the inner ear. Specifically, a translocation of the array from ST to SV does not seem to change the biomechanics of the cochlear region that lies basal to the area of translocation in the acute period.
Authors: Henryk Skarzynski; P van de Heyning; S Agrawal; S L Arauz; M Atlas; W Baumgartner; M Caversaccio; M de Bodt; J Gavilan; B Godey; K Green; W Gstoettner; R Hagen; D M Han; M Kameswaran; E Karltorp; M Kompis; V Kuzovkov; L Lassaletta; F Levevre; Y Li; M Manikoth; J Martin; R Mlynski; J Mueller; M O'Driscoll; L Parnes; S Prentiss; S Pulibalathingal; C H Raine; G Rajan; R Rajeswaran; J A Rivas; A Rivas; P H Skarzynski; G Sprinzl; H Staecker; K Stephan; S Usami; Y Yanov; M E Zernotti; K Zimmermann; A Lorens; G Mertens Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Suppl Date: 2013
Authors: George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Matthew L Carlson; René H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; David S Haynes; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Luke Campbell; Arielle Kaicer; David Sly; Claire Iseli; Benjamin Wei; Robert Briggs; Stephen O'Leary Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Theodore A Schuman; Jack H Noble; Charles G Wright; George B Wanna; Benoit Dawant; Robert F Labadie Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: Matthew J Goupell; Jack H Noble; Sandeep A Phatak; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Kenneth K Jensen; Michael Hoa; Hung Jeffrey Kim; Joshua G W Bernstein Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 2.619
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
Authors: Paul Van de Heyning; Peter Roland; Luis Lassaletta; Sumit Agrawal; Marcus Atlas; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Kevin Brown; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Dazert; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Rudolf Hagen; Abdulrahman Hagr; Greg Eigner Jablonski; Mohan Kameswaran; Vladislav Kuzovkov; Martin Leinung; Yongxin Li; Andreas Loth; Astrid Magele; Robert Mlynski; Joachim Mueller; Lorne Parnes; Andreas Radeloff; Chris Raine; Gunesh Rajan; Joachim Schmutzhard; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Georg Sprinzl; Hinrich Staecker; Timo Stöver; Dayse Tavora-Viera; Vedat Topsakal; Shin-Ichi Usami; Vincent Van Rompaey; Nora M Weiss; Wilhelm Wimmer; Mario Zernotti; Javier Gavilan Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-03-24