Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554036›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Response Changes During Insertion of a Cochlear Implant Using Extracochlear Electrocochleography.

Christopher K Giardina, Tatyana E Khan, Stephen H Pulver, Oliver F Adunka, Craig A Buchman, Kevin D Brown, Harold C Pillsbury, Douglas C Fitzpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Diving technique of cochlear implant electrode insertion for hearing preservation: how I do it.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Identifying Slim Modiolar Electrode Tip Fold-Over With Intracochlear Electrocochleography.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  6. Development and Characterization of an Electrocochleography-Guided Robotics-Assisted Cochlear Implant Array Insertion System.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2021
    Review
  9. Light sheet microscopy of the gerbil cochlea.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2021
    Article
  10. Intraoperative Observational Real-time Electrocochleography as a Predictor of Hearing Loss After Cochlear Implantation: 3 and 12 Month Outcomes.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher K GiardinaDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Tatyana E KhanDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Stephen H PulverDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Oliver F AdunkaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. USA.
Craig A BuchmanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Kevin D BrownDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Harold C PillsburyDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Douglas C FitzpatrickDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNorth Carolina State University · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Research Training in OtolaryngologyT32DC005360 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MANIS, PAUL B · 2003 to 2023
$2.8M
Predicting Speech Outcomes and Minimizing Trauma with Cochlear ImplantsF30DC015168 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GIARDINA, CHRISTOPHER · 2016 to 2019
$153k
NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC015168NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElectrocochleography is increasingly being utilized as an intraoperative monitor of cochlear function during cochlear implantation (CI). Intracochlear recordings from the advancing electrode can be obtained through the device by on-board capabilities. However, such recordings may not be ideal as a monitor because the recording electrode moves in relation to the neural and hair cell generators producing the responses. The purposes of this study were to compare two extracochlear recording locations in terms of signal strength and feasibility as intraoperative monitoring sites and to characterize changes in cochlear physiology during CI insertion.

designIn 83 human subjects, responses to 90 dB nHL tone bursts were recorded both at the round window (RW) and then at an extracochlear position-either adjacent to the stapes or on the promontory just superior to the RW. Recording from the fixed, extracochlear position continued during insertion of the CI in 63 cases.

resultsBefore CI insertion, responses to low-frequency tones at the RW were roughly 6 dB larger than when recording at either extracochlear site, but the two extracochlear sites did not differ from one another. During CI insertion, response losses from the promontory or adjacent to the stapes stayed within 5 dB in ≈61% (38/63) of cases, presumably indicating atraumatic insertions. Among responses which dropped more than 5 dB at any time during CI insertion, 12 subjects showed no response recovery, while in 13, the drop was followed by partial or complete response recovery by the end of CI insertion. In cases with recovery, the drop in response occurred relatively early (<15 mm insertion) compared to those where there was no recovery. Changes in response phase during the insertion occurred in some cases; these may indicate a change in the distributions of generators contributing to the response.

conclusionsMonitoring the electrocochleography during CI insertion from an extracochlear site reveals insertions that are potentially atraumatic, show interaction with cochlear structures followed by response recovery, or show interactions such that response losses persist to the end of recording.

Indexed as

Audiometry, Evoked ResponseCochlear ImplantsMonitoring, IntraoperativeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCochlear ImplantationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicRound Window, Ear

Identifiers

PMID29554036
PMCPMC6139286
OpenAlexW2794060085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.