Comparison of Transtympanic and Extratympanic Electrocochleography

Alan K. Dobbs, Wesley W. O. Krueger, Sheryl Bishop

Ear Institute of Texas, San Antonio, USA.
University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA,.

DOI: 10.4236/ijohns.2013.25035                

Abstract

Electrocochleography (ECoG) has been an important tool in the diagnosis of Meniere’s disease or endolymphatic hydrops. There are two methods employed, transtympanic and extratympanic. Many have regarded the results of these methods as being equally reliable. The purpose of this study is to determine any differences in sensitivity between the two methods. In this study patients with known endolymphatic hydrops or Meniere’s disease underwent ECoG testing with both the extratympanic method and the transtympanic method on the same day in the same ear. The results show a significant difference between the two methods, with the transtympanic wave values being smaller and therefore more sensitive than the extratympanic method. In addition, transtympanic ECoG resulted in better waveform morphology and better correlation with the audiometric findings in endolymphatic hydrops and Meniere’s disease. The results emphasize the superior role of transtympanic ECoG over extratympanic ECoG as a valuable component in the confirmation of Meniere’s disease or endolymphatic hydrops along with history and audiometric findings characteristic of the disease. Implications of the study promote the use of transtympanic ECoG rather than extratympanic ECoG in patients with symptoms suggestive of Meniere’s disease or endolymphatic hydrops.

Keywords

Meniere’s Disease; Endolymphatic Hydrops; Transtympanic Electrocochleography; Extratympanic Electrocochleography; ECoG

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	M. Ng and Sri, “Safety and Patient Experience with Transtympanic Electrocochleography,” The Laryngoscope, Vol. 111, No. 5, 2001, pp. 792-795. doi:10.1097/00005537-200105000-00007
[2]	P. Roland, M. W. Yellin, W. L. Meyerhoff and T. Frank, “Simultaneous Comparison between Transtympanic and Extratympanic Electrocochleography,” The American Journal of Otology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1995, pp. 444-450.
[3]	W. Krueger and A. Wagner, “Needle Placement with Transtympanic Electrocochleography,” The Laryngoscope, Vol. 107, No. 12, 1997, pp. 1671-1673. doi:10.1097/00005537-199712000-00018
[4]	L. Lustig, Ed., “Clinical Neurotology: Diagnosing and Managing Disorders of Hearing, Balance and the Facial Nerve,” Taylor & Francis, London, 2003.
[5]	J. A. Ferraro, “Clinical Electrocochleography: Overview of Theories, Techniques and Applications,” 2003. http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/pf_article_detail.asp?article_id=452
[6]	Y. Noguchi, “A Comparison of Extratympanic versus Transtympanic Recordings in Electrocochleography,” Audiology, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1999, pp. 135-140.
[7]	K. Matsuura, “Tympanic Electrocochleography with Disposable Electrode,” Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho, Vol. 99, No. 7, 1996, pp. 1016-1025. doi:10.3950/jibiinkoka.99.1016
[8]	K. F. Morawski, K. Niemczyk, J. Bohorquez, A. Marchel, R. E. Delgado, O. Ozdamar and F. F. Telischi, “Intraoperative Monitoring of Hearing Duringcerebellopontine Angle Tumor Surgery Usingtranstympanic Electrocochleography,” Otology & Neurotology, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2007, pp. 541-545.
[9]	H. Booker, “U.S. Department of Transportation—Federal Highway Administration,” In: Conference on Neurologic Disorders and Commerical Drivers, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 1988, pp. 1-47.
[10]	Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium, “Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Therapy in Meniere’s Disease,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 113, No. 3, 1995, pp. 181-185. doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70102-8
[11]	A. M. Pou, B. E. Hirsch, J. D. Durant, S. R. Gold and D. B. Kamerer, “The Efficacy of Tympanic Electrocochleography in the Diagnosis of Endolymphatic Hydrops,” American Journal of Otology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1996, pp. 607-611.
[12]	S. Ghosh, A. K. Gupta and S. S. Mann, “Can Electrocochleography in Meniere’s Disease Be Noninvasive?” Journal of Otolaryngology, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2002, pp. 371-375. doi:10.2310/7070.2002.34383
[13]	D. Zack-Williams, R. M. Angelo and Y. Qing, “A Com-parison of Electrocochleography and High-Pass Noise Masking of Auditory Brainstem Response for Diagnosis of Meniere’s Disease,” International Journal of Audiol-ogy,Vol. 51, No. 10, 2012, pp. 783-787. doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.699199
[14]	J. Hornibrook, C. Kalin, E. Lin, G. A. O’Beirn and J. Gourley, “Transtympanic Electrocochleography for the Diagnosis of Ménière’s Disease,” International Journal of Otolaryngology, 2012, pp. 1-11. doi:10.1155/2012/852714
[15]	M. A. Thorp, Z. P. Shehab, M. L. Bance and J. A. Rutka, “Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Therapy in Meniere’s Disease,” Clinical Otolaryngology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003, pp. 173-176. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00687.x