ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Does the audiogram shape influence the intracochlear recording of Electrocochleography during and after cochlear implantation?
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During cochlear implant (CI) surgery, it is desirable to perform intraoperative measurements such as Electrocochleography (ECochG) to monitor the inner ear function and thereby to support the preservation of residual hearing. However, a significant challenge arises as the recording location of intracochlear ECochG via the CI electrode changes during electrode insertion. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between intracochlear ECochG recordings, the position of the recording contact within the cochlea relative to its anatomy, and the implications for frequency and residual hearing preservation. Intraoperative ECochG recordings were conducted using the CI electrode (MED-EL) during the insertion of hearing preservation electrodes and after the insertion process. Recordings were continuously conducted using the most apical electrode (contact 1) during insertion. After insertion, the recordings were performed on all different electrode contacts. The electrode location in the cochlea during insertion was estimated using mathematical models and preoperative clinical imaging, while the postoperative electrode position was determined using postoperative clinical imaging. The study involved 10 adult CI recipients. In those with good low-frequency hearing, an increase in signal amplitude was observed, with the highest amplitudes closest to the stimulation frequency generators, and no phase change was observed. Conversely, patients with flat hearing loss exhibited a second peak with an opposite phase in the medial area of the cochlea. This study is the first to suggest that the pattern of the preoperative audiogram may influence the ECochG outcomes measured intraoperatively. Specifically, the ECochG responses during insertion appeared to behave as expected with good low-frequency hearing, while with flat hearing loss there appear to be further effects. These findings indicate that this approach can provide valuable information for the interpretation of intracochlearly recorded ECochG signals.
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.