ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Cochlear implantation in an animal model documents cochlear damage at the tip of the implant.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implications of phase difference and amplitude ratio from intracochlear and extracochlear electrocochleography in normal-hearing guinea pigs.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Micro-CT Analysis of Rodent Temporal Bones: Identifying Optimal Species for Otological Research.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- The role of pressure and friction forces in automated insertion of cochlear implants.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Sheep as a large animal model for hearing research: comparison to common laboratory animals and humans.Laboratory animal research · 2023Review
- Acute effects of cochleostomy and electrode-array insertion on compound action potentials in normal-hearing guinea pigs.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectrocochleography has recently emerged as a diagnostic tool in cochlear implant surgery, purposing hearing preservation and optimal electrode positioning.
objectiveIn this experimental study, extra-cochlear potentials were obtained during cochlear implant surgery in guinea pigs. The aim was to determine electrophysiological changes indicating cochlear trauma after cochleostomy and after electrode implantation in different insertion depths.
methodsNormal-hearing guinea pigs (n = 14) were implanted uni- or bilaterally with a multichannel electrode. The extra-cochlear cochlear nerve action potentials were obtained in response to acoustic stimuli at specific frequencies before and after cochleostomy, and after introduction of the electrode bundle. After the electrophysiological experiments, the guinea pigs were euthanized and microtomography was performed, in order to determine the position of the electrode and to calculate of the depth of insertion. Based on the changes of amplitude and thresholds in relation to the stimulus frequency, the electrophysiological data and the position obtained by the microtomography reconstruction were compared.
resultsCochleostomy promoted a small electrophysiological impact, while electrode insertion caused changes in the amplitude of extra-cochlear electrophysiological potentials over a wide range of frequencies, especially in the deepest insertions. There was, however, preservation of the electrical response to low frequency stimuli in most cases, indicating a limited auditory impact in the intraoperative evaluation. The mean insertion depth of the apical electrodes was 5339.56 μm (±306.45 - 6 inserted contacts) and 4447.75 μm (±290.23 - 5 inserted contacts).
conclusionsThe main electrophysiological changes observed during surgical procedures occurred during implantation of the electrode, especially the deepest insertions, whereas the cochleostomy disturbed the potentials to a lesser extent. While hearing loss was often observed apical to the cochlear implant, it was possible to preserve low frequencies after insertion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.