Back to Authors

Djalilian, Hamid R.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2270-5207

Mayo Clinic

University of California, Irvine

Citations 1

Multi‐Frequency Electrocochleography Results in Fewer Drop Alarms During Cochlear Implant Insertion
Espahbodi, Mana , Syed, Ali, Tu, Alex, Seidman, Michael D. , Danner, Christopher J., Allen, Kyle P., Bartels, Loren J., Ahsan, Syed F. , Voelker, Courtney C. J. , Deep, Nicholas L. , Chiffer, Rebecca C., Elrakhawy, Mohamed, Miller, Matthew W., Lin, Harrison W., Djalilian, Hamid R. , Angeli, Simon I., Kim, H J, Widick, Mark H., Stidham, Katrina R. , Patel, Neil S. , Koka, Kanthaiah , Hunter, Jacob B , Djalilian, Hamid R , Stidham, Katrina R , Gurgel, Richard Klaus , Doerfer, Karl W , Harris, Michael S , Danner, Christopher, Bartels, Loren Jay, Hunter, Jacob B. , Michaelides, Elias M. , Miller, Matthew W, Vivas, Esther , Angeli, Simón I., Hoa, Michael , Harris, Michael S.

The Laryngoscope | May 5, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1002/lary.70592 Get It

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) amplitude parameters during cochlear implantation (CI) using a novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm. Methods A multi‐institutional, prospective cohort study was performed at 18 high‐volume CI centers. The inclusion criteria were adults with sensorineural hearing loss and audiometric thresholds of ≤ 90 dB hearing level at 500 Hz undergoing CI with Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) Ultra 3D devices between 2024 and 2025. ECochG recordings were performed with simultaneous multi‐frequency stimulation of four frequencies between 125 and 4000 Hz during cochlear implant insertion. Concurrent multi‐frequency recording allowed extraction of amplitude and phase of each frequency individually. Post hoc analysis was performed to determine the difference in the number of drop alarms between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. An ECochG amplitude drop of 6 dB was defined as a drop alarm. Insertion track patterns were compared between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. Results One hundred ninety‐five ears were included. Mean number of drop alarms for the single‐frequency algorithm was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.52, 1.92; median 1) compared to 0.42 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.53; median 0) for multi‐frequency; p < 0.001. The number of Type C patterns (rise in amplitude during insertion followed by a drop) decreased with the multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm compared to the single‐frequency ECochG algorithm. The number of Type D patterns (no‐response) decreased, indicating that multi‐frequency ECochG generated more responses across the cochlea than single‐frequency ECochG. Conclusions A novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm during CI is associated with fewer drop alarms and altered insertion track patterns, which may provide a more accurate assessment of the cochlear microenvironment. Level of Evidence 3.