Two different methods to digitally visualize continuous electrocochleography potentials during cochlear implantation: a first description of feasibility.
Cochlear implantation
Digital microscope imaging
Hearing preservation
Intraoperative electrocochleography
Journal
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
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jan 2024
03 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
13
09
2023
accepted:
04
12
2023
medline:
4
1
2024
pubmed:
4
1
2024
entrez:
3
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The study explores the potential of real-time electrocochleographic potentials (ECochG) visualization during electrode insertion using digital microscopes such as RoboticScope (BHS®). Collaborative software development of the MAESTRO Software (MED-EL®) offers continuous ECochG monitoring during implantation and postoperative hearing evaluation, addressing previous time constraints. The study aims to assess software applicability and the impact of real-time visualization on long-term residual hearing preservation. Eight patients with residual hearing underwent cochlear implantation with Flex26 or Flex28 electrode according to the Otoplan evaluation. ECochG responses were measured and visualized during electrode insertion, with insertion times recorded. Two randomized display methods (graph and arrows) tracked ECochG potentials. Postoperative behavioral thresholds determined hearing preservation. Successful real-time intraoperative ECochG visualization was achieved in all cases, enabling surgeon adaptation. Mean electrode insertion time was 114 s, with postoperative thresholds comparable to preoperative values. Visualization did not affect surgeon workload. ECochG amplitudes differed between patients with and without residual hearing. The study demonstrates effective implementation of advanced ECochG software combined with real-time visualization, enabling residual hearing preservation during CI. Visualization had no apparent effect on surgeon performance or workload. Future investigation involving a larger population will assess the long-term impact of ECochG on hearing threshold and structure preservation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38170210
doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08400-3
pii: 10.1007/s00405-023-08400-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Polak M, Driscoll CLW et al (2013) Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 34:413–425
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827e8163
pubmed: 23446225
pmcid: 3742689
Dorman MF, Gifford RH (2010) Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 49:912–919
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.509113
pubmed: 20874053
pmcid: 2992956
Dunn CC, Perreau A, Gantz B, Tyler RS (2010) Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 21:44–51
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.6
pubmed: 20085199
pmcid: 2809934
Yüksel M, Meredith MA, Rubinstein JT (2019) Effects of low frequency residual hearing on music perception and psychoacoustic abilities in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Front Neurosci 13:924
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00924
pubmed: 31551687
pmcid: 6733978
Sheffield SW, Jahn K, Gifford RH (2015) Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception. J Am Acad Audiol 26:145–154
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.26.2.5
pubmed: 25690775
pmcid: 4446708
Balkany TJ, Connell SS, Hodges AV, Payne SL, Telischi FF, Eshraghi AA et al (2006) Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 27:1083–1088
doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000244355.34577.85
pubmed: 17130798
Hunter JB, Gifford RH, Wanna GB, Labadie RF, Bennett ML, Haynes DS et al (2016) Hearing preservation outcomes with a mid-scala electrode in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37:235–240
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000963
pubmed: 26825671
pmcid: 7185162
Moran M, Dowell RC, Iseli C, Briggs RJS (2017) Hearing preservation outcomes for 139 cochlear implant recipients using a thin straight electrode array. Otol Neurotol 38:678–684
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001374
pubmed: 28353622
Nguyen Y, Mosnier I, Borel S, Ambert-Dahan E, Bouccara D, Bozorg-Grayeli A et al (2013) Evolution of electrode array diameter for hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 133:116–122
doi: 10.3109/00016489.2012.723824
pubmed: 23216055
Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Oleson J, Hansen M, Parkinson A, Turner C (2016) Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes. Laryngoscope 126:962–973
doi: 10.1002/lary.25572
pubmed: 26756395
pmcid: 4803613
Dhanasingh A (2021) The rationale for FLEX (cochlear implant) electrode with varying array lengths. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 7:45–53
doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.12.003
pubmed: 33474544
Ketterer MC, Aschendorff A, Arndt S, Hassepass F, Wesarg T, Laszig R et al (2018) The influence of cochlear morphology on the final electrode array position. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:385–394
doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4842-y
pubmed: 29242990
O’Leary S, Briggs R, Gerard J-M, Iseli C, Wei BPC, Tari S et al (2020) Intraoperative Observational Real-time Electrocochleography as a Predictor of Hearing Loss After Cochlear Implantation: 3 and 12 Month Outcomes. Otol Neurotol 41:1222–1229
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002773
pubmed: 32925842
pmcid: 7497893
Barnes JH, Yin LX, Saoji AA, Carlson ML (2021) Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 7:94–100
doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2020.04.006
pubmed: 33997718
Lo J, Bester C, Collins A, Newbold C, Hampson A, Chambers S et al (2018) Intraoperative force and electrocochleography measurements in an animal model of cochlear implantation. Hear Res 358:50–58
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.11.001
pubmed: 29153256
O’Leary S, Mylanus E, Venail F, Lenarz T, Birman C, Di Lella F et al (2023) Monitoring Cochlear Health With Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation: Findings From an International Clinical Investigation. Ear Hear 44:358–370
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001288
pubmed: 36395515
Giardina CK, Brown KD, Adunka OF, Buchman CA, Hutson KA, Pillsbury HC et al (2019) Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Response Patterns During Cochlear Implantation and Hearing Preservation. Ear Hear 40:833–848
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000659
pubmed: 30335669
pmcid: 6534483
O’Connell BP, Holder JT, Dwyer RT, Gifford RH, Noble JH, Bennett ML et al (2017) Intra- and Postoperative Electrocochleography May Be Predictive of Final Electrode Position and Postoperative Hearing Preservation. Front Neurosci 11:291
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00291
pubmed: 28611574
pmcid: 5447029
Schuerch K, Waser M, Mantokoudis G, Anschuetz L, Wimmer W, Caversaccio M, et al. Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation. J Vis Exp 2022.
Arweiler-Harbeck D, D'heygere V, Meyer M, Hans S, Waschkies L, Lang S, et al. Digital Live Imaging of Intraoperative Electrocochleography - First Description of Feasibility and Hearing Preservation During Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42:1342–1346.
Hart SG. PsycEXTRA Dataset: American Psychological Association (APA); 2006.
Pfendler C. Zur Messung der mentalen Beanspruchung mit dem NASA-Task Load Index; 1990.
Hancock PA, Najmedin Meshkati E. Human mental workload. Advances in psychology 1988:XVI-382.
Harris MS, Riggs WJ, Giardina CK, O’Connell BP, Holder JT, Dwyer RT et al (2017) Patterns Seen During Electrode Insertion Using Intracochlear Electrocochleography Obtained Directly Through a Cochlear Implant. Otol Neurotol 38:1415–1420
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001559
pubmed: 28953607
pmcid: 5920552
Vittoria S, Lahlou G, Torres R, Daoudi H, Mosnier I, Mazalaigue S et al (2021) Robot-based assistance in middle ear surgery and cochlear implantation: first clinical report. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278:77–85
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06070-z
pubmed: 32458123
Kelsall, David, J. Eric Lupo, and Rocky Mountain Ear Center. Early Clinical Experience with the Cochlear™ Nucleus® SmartNav System: Real-time Surgical Insights.
Strenger T, Costian N, Ortolf E, Meyermann S, Zenk J. First Experiences with the Cochlear Nucleus SmartNav System: Abstract for DGHNO KHC. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 2023.
Höing B, Eichler T, Juelly V, Meyer M, Jung L, Waschkies L, et al. Digital live imaging of intraoperative electrocochleography during cochlear implantation: the first 50 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2023.
Ramos-Macias A, O’Leary S, Ramos-deMiguel A, Bester C, Falcon-González JC (2019) Intraoperative Intracochlear Electrocochleography and Residual Hearing Preservation Outcomes When Using Two Types of Slim Electrode Arrays in Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol 40:S29–S37
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002212
pubmed: 31225820
Koka K, Riggs WJ, Dwyer R, Holder JT, Noble JH, Dawant BM et al (2018) Intra-Cochlear Electrocochleography During Cochear Implant Electrode Insertion Is Predictive of Final Scalar Location. Otol Neurotol 39:e654–e659
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001906
pubmed: 30113557
pmcid: 6097527
Trecca EMC, Adunka OF, Mattingly JK, Hiss MM, Cassano M, Malhotra PS et al (2021) Electrocochleography Observations in a Series of Cochlear Implant Electrode Tip Fold-Overs. Otol Neurotol 42:e433–e437
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003008
pubmed: 33196531
Koka K, Saoji AA, Litvak LM (2017) Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Residual Hearing: Comparison With Audiometric Thresholds. Ear Hear 38:e161–e167
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000385
pubmed: 27879487