Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30335669›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Response Patterns During Cochlear Implantation and Hearing Preservation.

Christopher K Giardina, Kevin D Brown, Oliver F Adunka, Craig A Buchman, Kendall A Hutson, Harold C Pillsbury, Douglas C Fitzpatrick

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT06268340 (Preservation of Hearing and Structure Using an Electrocochleography Based Corrective Action Guide), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT06268340 narecruitingnot on this map

Preservation of Hearing and Structure Using an Electrocochleography Based Corrective Action Guide

TypeinterventionalSponsorAdvanced Bionics AGRan2024 to 2026Enrolled102ConditionsHearing Loss, Sensorineural, Severe-to-profound Hearing LossArmsECochG monitored CI surgery incl. corrective action guide, Routine CI surgery without ECochG monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Amplitude and Phase Changes in Electrocochleographic Real-Time Recordings During Cochlear Implantation and Its Relation to Pre- and Postoperative Hearing.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Two different methods to digitally visualize continuous electrocochleography potentials during cochlear implantation: a first description of feasibility.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
  14. 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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher K GiardinaDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Kevin D BrownDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Oliver F AdunkaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Craig A BuchmanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO.
Kendall A HutsonDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Harold C PillsburyDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Douglas C FitzpatrickDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USThe Ohio State University · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

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 DC015168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElectrocochleography (ECochG) obtained through a cochlear implant (CI) is increasingly being tested as an intraoperative monitor during implantation with the goal of reducing surgical trauma. Reducing trauma should aid in preserving residual hearing and improve speech perception overall. The purpose of this study was to characterize intracochlear ECochG responses throughout insertion in a range of array types and, when applicable, relate these measures to hearing preservation. The ECochG signal in cochlear implant subjects is complex, consisting of hair cell and neural generators with differing distributions depending on the etiology and history of hearing loss. Consequently, a focus was to observe and characterize response changes as an electrode advances.

designIn 36 human subjects, responses to 90 dB nHL tone bursts were recorded both at the round window (RW) and then through the apical contact of the CI as the array advanced into the cochlea. The specific setup used a sterile clip in the surgical field, attached to the ground of the implant with a software-controlled short to the apical contact. The end of the clip was then connected to standard audiometric recording equipment. The stimuli were 500 Hz tone bursts at 90 dB nHL. Audiometry for cases with intended hearing preservation (12/36 subjects) was correlated with intraoperative recordings.

resultsSuccessful intracochlear recordings were obtained in 28 subjects. For the eight unsuccessful cases, the clip introduced excessive line noise, which saturated the amplifier. Among the successful subjects, the initial intracochlear response was a median 5.8 dB larger than the response at the RW. Throughout insertion, modiolar arrays showed median response drops after stylet removal while in lateral wall arrays the maximal median response magnitude was typically at the deepest insertion depth. Four main patterns of response magnitude were seen: increases > 5 dB (12/28), steady responses within 5 dB (4/28), drops > 5 dB (from the initial response) at shallow insertion depths (< 15 mm deep, 7/28), or drops > 5 dB occurring at deeper depths (5/28). Hearing preservation, defined as < 80 dB threshold at 250 Hz, was successful in 9/12 subjects. In these subjects, an intracochlear loss of response magnitude afforded a prediction model with poor sensitivity and specificity, which improved when phase, latency, and proportion of neural components was considered. The change in hearing thresholds across cases was significantly correlated with various measures of the absolute magnitudes of response, including RW response, starting response, maximal response, and final responses (p's < 0.05, minimum of 0.0001 for the maximal response, r's > 0.57, maximum of 0.80 for the maximal response).

conclusionsMonitoring the cochlea with intracochlear ECochG during cochlear implantation is feasible, and patterns of response vary by device type. Changes in magnitude alone did not account for hearing preservation rates, but considerations of phase, latency, and neural contribution can help to interpret the changes seen and improve sensitivity and specificity. The correlation between the absolute magnitude obtained either before or during insertion of the ECochG and the hearing threshold changes suggest that cochlear health, which varies by subject, plays an important role.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAdolescentAdultAgedAudiometry, Evoked ResponseChildChild, PreschoolCochleaCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsFemaleHearingHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansInfantMale

Identifiers

PMID30335669
PMCPMC6534483
OpenAlexW2897529144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.