Front. Neurosci. Frontiers in Neuroscience Front. Neurosci. 1662-453X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00291 Neuroscience Original Research Intra- and Postoperative Electrocochleography May Be Predictive of Final Electrode Position and Postoperative Hearing Preservation O'Connell Brendan P. 1 Holder Jourdan T. 2 * Dwyer Robert T. 2 Gifford René H. 1 2 Noble Jack H. 1 3 Bennett Marc L. 1 Rivas Alejandro 1 Wanna George B. 1 Haynes David S. 1 Labadie Robert F. 1 3 1Department of Otolaryngology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN, United States 2Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN, United States 3Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN, United States

Edited by: Jeffery Lichtenhan, Washington University in St. Louis, United States

Reviewed by: Christof Röösli, University of Zurich, Switzerland; Shuman He, Boys Town National Research Hospital, United States; Bryan Kevin Ward, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, United States; Sandra Prentiss, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, United States

*Correspondence: Jourdan T. Holder jourdan.t.holder@vanderbilt.edu

This article was submitted to Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience

29 05 2017 2017 11 291 22 02 2017 08 05 2017 Copyright © 2017 O'Connell, Holder, Dwyer, Gifford, Noble, Bennett, Rivas, Wanna, Haynes and Labadie. 2017 O'Connell, Holder, Dwyer, Gifford, Noble, Bennett, Rivas, Wanna, Haynes and Labadie

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Introduction: The objectives of the current study were to (1) determine the relationship between electrocochleography (ECochG), measured from the cochlear implant (CI) electrode array during and after implantation, and postoperative audiometric thresholds, (2) determine the relationship between ECochG amplitude and electrode scalar location determined by computerized tomography (CT); and (3) determine whether changes in cochlear microphonic (CM) amplitude during electrode insertion were associated with postoperative hearing.

Materials and Methods: Eighteen subjects undergoing CI with an Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala device were prospectively studied. ECochG responses were recorded using the implant coupled to a custom signal recording unit. ECochG amplitude collected intraoperatively concurrent with CI insertion and at activation was compared with audiometric thresholds postoperatively. Sixteen patients also underwent postoperative CT to determine scalar location and the relationship to ECochG measures and residual hearing.

Results: Mean low-frequency pure tone average (LFPTA) increased following surgery by an average of 28 dB (range 8–50). Threshold elevation was significantly greater for electrodes with scalar dislocation. No correlation was found between intraoperative ECochG and postoperative behavioral thresholds collapsed across frequency; however, mean differences in thresholds measured by intraoperative ECochG and postoperative audiometry were significantly smaller for electrodes inserted completely within scala tympani (ST) vs. those translocating from ST to scala vestibuli. A significant correlation was observed between postoperative ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds obtained at activation.

Discussion: Postoperative audiometry currently serves as a marker for intracochlear trauma though thresholds are not obtained until device activation or later. When measured at the same time-point postoperatively, low-frequency ECochG thresholds correlated with behavioral thresholds. Intraoperative ECochG thresholds, however, did not correlate significantly with postoperative behavioral thresholds suggesting that changes in cochlear physiology occur between electrode insertion and activation. ECochG may hold clinical utility providing surgeons with feedback regarding insertion trauma due to scalar translocation, which may be predictive of postoperative hearing preservation.

Conclusion: CI insertion trauma is generally not evident until postoperative audiometry when loss of residual hearing is confirmed. ECochG has potential to provide estimates of trauma during insertion as well as reliable information regarding degree of hearing preservation.

cochlear implant electrocochleography residual hearing audiometry cochlear microphonic hearing loss hearing preservation R01DC008408 R01DC009404 R01DC014037 National Institutes of Health10.13039/100000002

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Cochlear implants (CI) are surgically-implanted medical devices capable of restoring audibility and speech understanding to individuals with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who do not receive benefit from appropriately fit amplification. Traditionally, CIs have been used to treat individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss; however, indications for implantation have expanded to include individuals with significant low-frequency hearing and poor-to-fair speech understanding. Furthermore, advances in electrode design (e.g., increased flexibility and smaller dimensions) and surgical techniques (e.g., surgical approach, insertion angle, insertion speed, etc.) have introduced a new generation of implant recipients with preserved low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear.

      The importance of low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear has been well-documented. Preservation of acoustic hearing allows individuals with CIs to take advantage of periodicity, commonly referred to as voice pitch, and temporal fine structure (e.g., Rosen, 1992), offering improved spectral resolution. Periodicity and fine structure provided via residual low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear afford significant improvement for speech understanding in complex listening environments over electric only listening and traditional bimodal hearing combining the CI with acoustic hearing originating from the non-implanted ear (e.g., Dorman and Gifford, 2010; Dunn et al., 2010; Gifford et al., 2013, 2015, 2017; Rader et al., 2013; Loiselle et al., 2016), as well as, significant improvements in sound localization (Dunn et al., 2010; Gifford et al., 2014; Loiselle et al., 2016; Plant and Babic, 2016). The degree of mean hearing preservation benefit ranges from 10- to 20-percentage points for fixed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions (e.g., Gifford et al., 2013, 2017; Loiselle et al., 2015) and 2–3-dB for adaptive SNR testing (e.g., Dunn et al., 2010; Gifford et al., 2013, 2015). Despite the success of hearing preservation surgery and associated functional benefit, there is still considerable variability in benefit across listeners, and rates of hearing preservation are highly variable across patients, electrode types (perimodiolar and straight), and insertion depths.

      Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits associated with low frequency acoustic hearing, but given current resources, surgeons are able to achieve hearing preservation—defined as postoperative audiometric thresholds within 10 dB of preoperative levels—in, at most, 50% of cases (Jurawitz et al., 2014; Santa Maria et al., 2014; Van Abel et al., 2015; Dedhia et al., 2016; Eshraghi et al., 2016; Skarzynski et al., 2016). The pathophysiology of hearing loss during and following surgery is still largely unknown, but it is believed to be a result of (1) intraoperative physical trauma including fracture of the osseous spiral lamina, trans-scalar dislocation, and/or insult to spiral ligament or stria vascularis and/or (2) postoperative inflammatory responses and subsequent fibrosis, neo-osteogenesis and/or cellular apoptosis (e.g., Eshraghi and Van de Water, 2006; Eshraghi et al., 2013; Kamakura and Nadol, 2016).

      At present, surgeons and audiologists have no way of knowing whether residual hearing was preserved until the patient returns for audiometric evaluation approximately 2 weeks after surgery. More often than not, there are no indications of physical trauma associated with insertion given the lack of visualization beyond the basal turn. Even experienced surgeons cannot reliably detect the subtle intraoperative forces, which can impart damage to delicate intracochlear structures. Previous retrospective research has shown that the frequent occurrence of translocation from scala tympani (ST) to scala vestibuli (SV) during insertion—occurring in approximately 42% of perimodiolar electrode insertions—has detrimental effects on CI outcomes (Adunka et al., 2004; Finley et al., 2008; Choudhury et al., 2012; Holden et al., 2013; Wanna et al., 2014; Dalbert et al., 2016).

      If an intraoperative metric existed that could alert surgeons to physiological damage, such information would potentially allow him/her to modify the surgical procedure and potentially improve outcomes. One emerging solution is the use of intraoperative, intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) in providing continuous real-time recordings of physiological activity of intracochlear tissue during and after electrode insertion. ECochG can be recorded for patients with profound hearing loss and even in some individuals with no measurable audiometric thresholds (Choudhury et al., 2012).

      ECochG is a technique used to record acoustically evoked electrical potentials generated by the inner ear and auditory nerve. Acoustic stimulation (i.e., a tone burst) is presented to the external ear, and the resulting electrical potentials are measured from the cochlea. The ECochG response is comprised of the cochlear microphonic (CM), summating potential (SP), compound action potential (CAP), and auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN). Each of these responses comes from different parts of the intricate inner auditory system. The CM is thought to represent the electrical potential generated by the stereocilia of the outer hair cells (Sohmer et al., 1980; Patuzzi et al., 1989; Verpy et al., 2008); the SP from the direct current shift of the receptor potential of the inner hair cells and some outer hair cells (Palmer and Russell, 1986; Durrant et al., 1998); the CAP from VIIIth nerve activity (ABR wave I) (Durrant et al., 1998); and the ANN from the inner hair cells (first order generator) and the phase-locked responses of VIIIth nerve fibers, which are used for hearing speech in background noise, localizing sounds, and perceiving/differentiating pitch (Palmer and Russell, 1986; Forgues et al., 2014).

      ECochG responses were first recorded using surface electrodes (Poch-Broto et al., 2009), trans-tympanic electrodes (Yoshie et al., 1967; Prijs, 1991; Schoonhoven et al., 1996), or extra-tympanic electrodes (Cullen et al., 1972; Yoshie, 1973; Ferraro, 2010; Zhang, 2012). More recently, potentials have been recorded directly from the cochlea using a needle electrode placed at the round window (Mandala et al., 2012; Radeloff et al., 2012; Dalbert et al., 2015b; Adunka et al., 2016), a needle electrode placed inside the round window (Calloway et al., 2014), or an electrode on the cochlear implant array being implanted (Campbell et al., 2015; Dalbert et al., 2015a).

      Relationship between intraoperative ECochG and postoperative word recognition

      Fitzpatrick et al. (2014) recorded ECochG responses at the round window intraoperatively prior to CI insertion in 21 adults and subsequently correlated ECochG magnitude with postoperative CNC word recognition scores. In this study, the metric for ECochG magnitude was termed total response (TR) and defined as the sum of all significant first and second harmonic responses across all frequencies at the highest sound level (90 dB nHL). They reported that TR accounted for 47% of variability in outcomes on the CNC word recognition task making it, at the time, the highest known predictor of CI outcomes even over other predictors such as duration of deafness (<25%; e.g., Rubinstein et al., 1999; Friedland et al., 2003; Plant et al., 2016) and degree of residual hearing (e.g., Plant et al., 2016). Scott et al. (2016) completed intraoperative ECochG with a needle electrode at the round window prior to electrode insertion for 238 CI recipients with postoperative CNC word recognition obtained for 51 adult CI recipients. Similar to Fitzpatrick et al. (2014), they found a significant correlation between TR and CNC word recognition at 6 months post activation (r = 0.43); however, the ECochG CAP only weakly correlated postoperative word recognition (r = 0.20, p < 0.001). Thus, while ECochG appears to be a promising measure for helping explain postoperative outcomes, much additional research is needed to carefully investigate this relationship.

      Relationship between intraoperative ECochG and acoustic hearing preservation

      Researchers have also investigated the relationship between intraoperative ECochG and acoustic hearing preservation in the implanted ear. Adunka et al. (2016) recorded ECochG at the round window before and after CI insertion and found no correlation between the ECochG response and postoperative residual hearing as measured by audiometric thresholds—though the results may have been limited by the extracochlear nature of the recording electrode.

      ECochG can also be recorded using the CI electrode array which offers advantages given its proximity to the organ of Corti. Koka et al. (2016) measured difference and summation responses from ECochG waveforms postoperatively from patients with residual hearing and compared with behavioral audiometric thresholds. The group found that 87% percent of the variability in postoperative behavioral audiometric thresholds across all frequencies tested could be predicted by difference response thresholds and 82% predicted by summation response thresholds; concluding that ECochG thresholds may be useful to estimate postoperative preserved acoustic hearing in CI patients who cannot participate in behavioral audiometry.

      Campbell et al. (2016) recorded ECochG measurements intraoperatively from the CI array in 18 recipients with residual acoustic hearing and (1) explored providing real-time surgical feedback as well as (2) investigated the correlation between ECochG recordings and postoperative acoustic hearing. They found this method to be potentially useful for providing feedback regarding surgical trauma and that patients who had a preserved ECochG at the end of surgery were more likely to have preserved hearing. In fact, postoperative audiometric thresholds for patients with preserved CM were, on average, 15 dB better than individuals without a preserved ECochG. Similar findings were reported by Acharya et al. (2016) for two pediatric patients.

      Building on this previous work, in the present study intracochlear ECochG responses were measured for 18 (n = 18) adult Advanced Bionics (AB) CI recipients with preoperative acoustic hearing in the ear to be implanted. ECochG measurements were made both during and after CI insertion, and these measures were compared with pre- and postoperative audiometric thresholds. Sixteen (n = 16) participants also underwent postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scanning to verify scalar placement. The objectives of the current study were (1) to determine the relationship between ECochG, measured from the CI array either during cochlear implantation or after surgery, and postoperative audiometric thresholds, (2) to determine if the CM amplitudes correlated with electrode scalar location/translocation as determined by CT scanning, and (3) to determine if change in CM during electrode insertion is associated with postoperative residual hearing.

      Methods Subjects

      Adult patients with residual acoustic hearing (≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz) who were seeking cochlear implantation with an Advanced Bionics (AB) Mid-Scala device between April and December 2016 were prospectively recruited for participation. Exclusion criteria included previous history of middle ear surgery, sudden sensorineural hearing loss, auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD), single-sided deafness, and/or abnormal anatomy as detected by CT or MRI scanning. Eighteen (n = 18) subjects met inclusion criteria and were implanted by one of five cochlear implant surgeons using a round window (n = 14) or extended round window approach (n = 4). Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. The methods used in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board at Vanderbilt University (IRB approval: 151808), and all subjects provided written informed consent before participation.

      Subject demographics, RW, round window; ERW, extended round window; LFPTA, low frequency pure tone average (average threshold for 125, 250, and 500 Hz, in dB HL); ST, scala tympani; SV, scala vestibuli; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative.

      Subject Surgical approach Preop LFPTA Postop LFPTA LFPTA shift Scalar location
      1 ERW 50.0 61.7 11.7 ST
      2 ERW 51.7 85.0 33.3 ST-SV
      3 RW 60.0 105.0* 45.0 ST-SV
      4 RW 68.3 88.3 20.0 ST
      5 RW 63.3 105.0* 41.7 ST-SV
      6 RW 41.7 76.7 35.0 ST-SV
      7 RW 31.7 81.7 50.0
      8 ERW 31.7 56.7 25.0 ST
      9 RW 56.7 105.0* 48.3 ST-SV
      10 RW 66.7 105.0* 38.3 ST (* BM)
      11 RW 66.7 76.7 10.0 ST-SV
      12 RW 26.7 45.0 18.3 ST
      13 RW 45.0 70.0 25.0 ST
      14 ERW 53.3 66.7 13.3 ST
      15 RW 58.3 105.0* 46.7
      16 RW 75.3 83.3 8.0 ST
      17 RW 66.7 75.0 8.3 ST
      18 RW 60.0 80.0 20.0 ST
      MEAN 54.1 81.8 27.7

      Thresholds with asterisk represent no behavioral response at the limits of the audiometer.

      BM indicates the electrode pushing against the basilar membrane.

      Equipment

      The equipment used for data collection was previously described by Koka et al. (2016). The Bionic Ear Data Collection System (BEDCS) was used to measure ECochG responses. A NI DAQ system (NI DAQ 6216, National Instruments Corporation, 11500 Mopac Expwy, Austin, TX) and an audio amplifier (Sony PHA-2, Sony Corporation, New York, NY) were used to generate the acoustic stimuli, which was presented through an ER-3A (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) insert earphone. An ER-7 (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) probe microphone was used to calibrate and monitor the stimulus level in the ear canal. The ECochG response was measured using an AB Clinical Programming Interface Platinum Series Sound Processor (PSP) and Universal Headpiece (UHP) with additional magnets for retention and secure connection.

      Pure-tone audiometry (PTA)

      Pure-tone audiometry was assessed prior to implantation and at activation approximately 2–3 weeks after surgery. Audiometric thresholds were completed in a double-walled sound treated booth. Air-conduction thresholds were obtained for all octaves and inter-octave frequencies from 125 to 8,000 Hz using an insert earphone. Bone-conduction thresholds were obtained for octave frequencies from 500 to 4,000 Hz using a bone oscillator placed on the mastoid. Contralateral masking was implemented when appropriate. Low-frequency PTA was calculated using the average of unaided air-conduction thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz.

      ECochG recording

      ECochG potentials were measured from the most apical electrode of the implant array intraoperatively as the surgeon was inserting the CI and postoperatively at each subject's CI activation. Intraoperatively, after the patient was intubated, an ER-3A (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) insert earphone and an ER-7 (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) probe microphone were placed in the external auditory canal of the surgical ear (See Koka et al., 2016, Figure 1). Since the insert earphone and probe microphone were not sterilized, these pieces were kept out of the sterile field by folding the pinna anteriorly and securing it with a large Tegaderm® transparent adhesive film dressing (3M, 2501 Hudson Rd., Maplewood, MN) taking caution to not compromise the tube delivering sound to the ear. At this point, calibration was completed to ensure that the tube was not crimped or that the insert placement was faulty. The cables/tubes connecting the insert earphone and probe microphone to the measurement equipment were then disconnected, wrapped in a cloth, and placed underneath the surgical table so as to minimize interference with the surgical procedure. The surgical preparation (i.e., sterilization and draping) and surgical procedure (cortical mastoidectomy, facial recess, and round window exposure) then progressed according to normal protocols until just before insertion of the electrode array at which point the cables/tubes were reconnected to the recording equipment and the Universal Headpiece and cable were covered with a sterile ultrasound bag and magnetically coupled to the patient's newly implanted receiver/stimulator. Calibration was repeated, and the ECochG recording was started. The CI electrode was introduced via the round window or extended round window and inserted according to the manufacturer's recommendations (i.e., insertion with the stylet to the first blue marker at which point the pre-curved electrode was advanced off the stylet until the second blue marker was located at the round window). The surgeon reported a full insertion in all cases. While the surgeon was inserting the electrode, the audiologist used markers to identify different key points during the surgery (i.e., round window, first blue marker, second blue marker, complete insertion). For the duration of electrode insertion and ECochG insertion, an acoustic tone burst was delivered via the insert earphone (500-Hz, toneburst, 110 dB SPL or 97 dB HL, alternating polarity, 50-ms duration with 5-ms onset/offset ramp time) while the ECochG response was recorded from the most apical electrode. The neural response imaging (NRI) amplifier in the implant was used for amplification of the response (gain of 1,000). The recordings were done with alternating polarities (2 rarefaction and 2 condensation traces) and averaged in the implant amplifier, then transferred to the processor. Data plotting for the insertion tracks depends on SNR of the signal, which usually averages and plots at a single point until SNR reaches 18 dB, or 8 averages have been performed (internally 16 averages). The SNR benefit can be achieved by 55 ms recordings that can be seen in frequency spectrum with larger acquisition times; the acquisitions were done at 4–6 stimuli per second. In presenting this data, the CM amplitude during the insertion track is normalized with respect to the amplitude obtained at the round window, therefore values are presented as dB. After insertion was complete, the recording electrode was changed to 1, 5, 9, and then 13; additional ECochG measurements were obtained from these electrodes to try and understand electrode location with respect to the 500-Hz stimulus. Subsequently, the stimulus frequency was changed from 125 to 2,000 Hz in octave steps using electrode 1 as the recording electrode to estimate each subject's CM threshold in dB HL at each frequency. Surgery concluded per standard. It is estimated that intraoperative ECochG testing added approximately 5 min of time to each case. It should be noted that for this study, the surgeon was not informed of the ECochG results during the insertion of the electrode.

      Pre- and postoperative pure-tone thresholds; each symbol represents an individual patient. Scalar location of electrode, when available, has been denoted (the * represents the electrode abutting the basilar membrane). Diagonal lines are used to depict hearing preservation in relation to pure-tone average (PTA) shift bins as follows: PTA shift <15 dB, PTA shift between 15–30 dB, and PTA shift >30 dB.

      Postoperative ECochG measurement occurred in the audiology clinic on the same day as the patient's CI activation appointment, typically 2 weeks after surgery. An ER-3A (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) insert earphone and an ER-7 (Etymotic Research, Inc. 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL) probe microphone were placed in the external auditory canal of the implanted ear, and the Universal Headpiece was coupled with the patient's receiver stimulator. Calibration was completed to ensure that the tube was not crimped or that the insert placement was faulty. Tone bursts were presented sequentially at 125, 250, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz. The patient's ECochG response was measured from the apical electrode and recorded for each frequency. These frequency scan responses were used to estimate subjects' CM thresholds.

      Stimuli and recording parameters

      The amplitude of the ECochG response was calculated using fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analysis within the Bionic Ear Data Collection System. A sample rate of 9,280 and a low pass filter of 5 kHz in the NRI amplifier were used to acquire the responses over a 54.5 ms recording duration through back-telemetry.

      Computerized tomography (CT) scanning

      A subset (n = 16) of patients received postoperative CT scans using a low-dose, flat-panel, volumetric computerized tomography machine (Xoran XCAT, Xoran Technologies; Ann Arbor, MI). Using previously described and validated image-processing algorithms (Noble et al., 2011) scans were analyzed for scalar location of the electrode array (Noble et al., 2011). ST insertions were defined as insertions in which all electrode contacts were located entirely within the ST. Conversely, SV insertions were characterized by electrode arrays that translocated from the ST into the SV, such that at least one electrode contact was located within the SV.

      Statistical methods

      Data were plotted and analyzed using GraphPad Prism 7.0 software (GraphPad Software Inc, 2012). Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution with D'Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test.

      Correlations were performed to examine the relationships between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds at individual frequencies (125, 250, and 500 Hz). Parametric and nonparametric data were examined using a Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis, respectively. Spearman correlation was also used if the sample size of a group was too small to determine distribution of data. Given that correlations were performed at multiple frequencies, the Bonferroni correction was used adjusting the critical p-value. Patients were then categorized by the scalar location of their electrode array (ST and SV), and correlations between ECochG and behavioral thresholds within both these groups were assessed.

      The following dependent variables were also assessed: (1) the absolute difference between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds at individual frequencies (125, 250, and 500 Hz), (2) low-frequency PTA shift, (3) rise in CM amplitude from start of insertion to the peak value during insertion, and (4) the drop in CM amplitude from the peak value during insertion to completion of insertion. Patients were again characterized into groups according to scalar location and comparisons of the aforementioned variables were made between ST vs. SV insertions with an independent t-test (normal distribution) or a Mann-Whitney U-test (non-normal distribution). A p < 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance, with the exception of data pertaining to absolute differences between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds, as multiple frequencies were analyzed; the Bonferroni correction was used in these analyses.

      Results Demographics and operative characteristics

      Eighteen patients met inclusion criteria and were prospectively enrolled (Table 1). The median age at the time of surgery was 67 years (range 23–80); 61% of the patients were male. Round window insertions were performed in the 78% of cases (n = 14), with extended round window insertions used in the remaining 22% (n = 4). Surgeons reported full insertion in all cases. Resistance during insertion was subjectively noted in one case; with electrode repositioning resistance subsided and a full insertion was achieved.

      Electrode location

      Sixteen patients consented to undergo postoperative CT imaging such that scalar electrode location could be determined. Two patients electively chose not to participate in the postoperative imaging portion of the study, therefore scalar location of these electrode arrays could not be determined. Because all insertions were performed through either round window or extended round window approaches, all electrodes were initially inserted into the ST within the basal turn. In six patients (38%), electrode translocation from the ST into the SV was observed. In one patient, after analysis, the electrode array was pushing against the basilar membrane but did not clearly translocate into the SV; interestingly, this was the case in which resistance was subjectively felt during insertion. Because of the limits of our image processing algorithms, this patient was excluded from subsequent statistical analyses that examined the impact of scalar location on audiologic outcomes.

      Hearing preservation

      Preoperatively, all patients had functional residual hearing (≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz) prior to surgery. The mean preoperative low-frequency PTA was 54 dB HL (range 27–75). At activation, the majority of patients (n = 12, 66%) demonstrated measurable unaided air-conduction thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz. One patient had measurable thresholds at 125, and 250 Hz but did not respond to unaided pure-tones at 500 Hz; the remaining 5 patients demonstrated no responses at 125, 250, and 500 Hz.

      Eleven patients (61%) maintained thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz. Mean low-frequency PTA at activation was 82 dB HL (range 45–105), yielding an average low-frequency PTA shift of 28 dB (range 8–50). As depicted in Figure 1, 5 patients (28%) demonstrated low-frequency PTA shift <15 dB, 5 patients (28%) demonstrated low-frequency PTA shift between 15 and 30 dB, and the remaining 8 patients demonstrated low-frequency PTA shift >30 dB (44%).

      The impact of demographic and surgical variables on low-frequency PTA shift was then assessed. No relation between age at surgery and postoperative PTA shift was noted (r = 0.13, p = 0.60). Further, no difference in median PTA shift was observed when round window insertions (23 dB, range 8–50) were compared to extended round window insertions (22 dB, range 12–47, p = 0.81). The median low-frequency PTA shift was significantly lower for electrodes entirely inserted into the ST (16 dB, range 8–25) as compared to electrodes that translocated into the SV (38 dB, range 10–48, p = 0.02; Figure 2).

      Scatter plot of low-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) shift depicted according to scalar electrode location. Lower median shift (i.e., better hearing preservation) was noted when comparing electrodes inserted entirely into the scala tympani (ST) to electrodes that translocated into scala vestibuli (SV). Shown are the median and the range of the 25–75th percentile.

      Intraoperative ECochG thresholds vs. postoperative behavioral thresholds

      The relationship between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative behavioral audiometric thresholds was analyzed. Intraoperative ECochG thresholds were successfully measured in 17 patients (94.4%); connection between the receiver stimulator and external monitoring equipment was lost in one patient. The absolute mean difference between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative behavioral thresholds for 125, 250, and 500 Hz is shown in Table 2. The absolute difference between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds was significantly lower (i.e., better) for ST insertions compared to SV insertions at 125 and 250 Hz frequencies (p = 0.001 for both analyses). In the overall cohort, no significant correlations between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative behavioral thresholds were noted at 125 Hz (r = 0.12, p = 0.64), 250 Hz (r = 0.08, p = 0.77), or 500 Hz (rs = 0.46, p = 0.07; Figure 3). The relationship between ECochG and behavioral thresholds at activation is also plotted as a function of scalar location.

      The mean absolute difference between intraoperative electrocochleography (ECochG) thresholds and postoperative behavioral thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz frequencies are shown in the overall cohort.

      Frequency (Hz) Δ Intraop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, overall mean in dB HL (range) Δ Intraop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, ST Insertion mean in dB HL (range) Δ Intraop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, SV insertion mean in dB HL (range) p-value
      125 29 (1–69) 16 (1–28) 46 (33–69) 0.001
      250 24 (2–55) 13 (2–29) 41 (30–55) 0.001
      500 19 (2–40) 12 (2–38) 22 (6–35) 0.310

      Differences are also depicted according to scalar location of the electrode array; the P value represents the comparison between scala tympani (ST) insertions and scala vestibuli (SV) insertions. Means and ranges are reported. Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.017 indicative of statistical significance.

      The relationship between intraoperative ECochG thresholds, in dB HL, and postoperative behavioral thresholds, also in dB HL, for 125, 250, and 500 Hz are depicted in the entire cohort, and for those cases in which scalar location is known. Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.017 indicative of statistical significance. The diagonal and dotted lines represent the ±20 dB difference between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds.

      Postoperative ECochG thresholds vs. postoperative behavioral thresholds

      Postoperative ECochG thresholds were successfully measured in 17 patients (94%) at activation; testing in one patient was limited by time constraints and patient preference. The mean difference between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds at activation is shown in Table 3. At 125 Hz, the difference between postoperative ECochG threshold and pure tone thresholds was significantly lower (i.e., better) for ST insertions compared to SV insertions (p = 0.0007). A significant correlation between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds at activation was observed at 125 Hz (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001), 250 Hz (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001), and 500 Hz (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001; Figure 4). These relationships are also shown according to scalar location. Bland-Altman plots assessing agreement between methods at activation for low-frequencies are shown in Figure 5.

      The mean absolute difference between postoperative electrocochleography (ECochG) thresholds and postoperative behavioral thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz frequencies are shown in the overall cohort.

      Frequency (Hz) Δ Postop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, overall mean in dB HL (range) Δ Postop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, ST insertion mean in dB HL (range) Δ Postop ECochG and postop behavioral thresholds, SV insertion mean in dB HL (range) p-value
      125 15 (0–37) 7 (0–14) 22 (15–37) 0.0007
      250 9 (0–23) 8 (4–14) 11 (0–23) 0.42
      500 6 (0–29) 4 (1–11) 6 (0–13) 0.99

      Differences are also depicted according to scalar location of the electrode array; the P-value represents the comparison between scala tympani (ST) insertions and scala vestibuli (SV) insertions. Means and ranges are reported. Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.017 indicative of statistical significance.

      The relationship between postoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative behavioral thresholds for 125, 250, and 500 Hz frequencies are depicted in the entire cohort, and for those cases in which scalar location is known. Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.017 indicative of statistical significance.

      Bland-Altman plots depict the average and difference between postoperative behavioral and ECochG thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz. The 95% limits of agreement are shown as two dotted lines. The biases, or average of the differences at each frequency, are reported.

      ECochG insertion monitoring

      Changes in CM amplitude during electrode insertion were then analyzed. As mentioned previously, intraoperative ECochG could not be performed in one patient; in addition, the insertion scans from four other patients were invalid secondary to monitoring issues. Insertion scans from the remaining 13 patients are depicted in Figure 6 according to scalar electrode location. The mean rise in CM amplitude from start of insertion at the round window to the peak value during insertion, was 22 dB (range 5–40). On average, the CM amplitude dropped 3 dB (range 0–8) from the peak value during insertion to completion of insertion. These objective measures of CM amplitude change were compared between ST and SV insertions; no significant differences were noted (p = 0.35 and p = 0.61; Table 4). Further, low-frequency PTA shift did not correlate significantly with round window to peak amplitude (r = −0.40, p = 0.17) nor drop from peak to completion of insertion (r = 0.26, p = 0.38).

      Change in cochlear microphonic (CM) amplitude, in dB re: microVolts, during insertion is shown according to scalar location of the electrode array.

      Various objective measures of change in cochlear microphonic (CM) amplitude during insertion are compared between scala tympani (ST) and scala vestibuli (SV) insertions.

      Δ CM Amplitude during insertion ST Insertion median in dB (range) SV Insertion median in dB (range) p-value
      Round window to peak amplitude 25 (16–40) 19 (5–33) 0.35
      Peak amplitude to complete insertion 5 (0–8) 3 (0–5) 0.61
      Discussion

      In the current study, we completed ECochG obtaining CM amplitude at various stages in the electrode insertion as well as an estimate obtained at the activation appointment. We did not observe a significant relationship between CM amplitude obtained during electrode insertion and scalar electrode location for our group of 16 patients with postoperative CT scans. Intraoperative ECochG thresholds, via frequency scan, did not correlate significantly with postoperative audiometric thresholds; however, a trend was noted between ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds for electrodes inserted entirely into the ST at 125 Hz (p = 0.06). Further, the mean difference between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds was significantly smaller for electrodes in ST as compared to those which translocated into SV at 125 and 250 Hz.

      At present, postoperative audiometric thresholds represent a marker for intracochlear insertion trauma. We hypothesize that intraoperative ECochG may provide us with valuable information at the time of surgery that may be significantly correlated with behavioral audiometric thresholds obtained at activation if electrodes remain within ST. Though we did not observe a significant correlation between ECochG thresholds obtained intraoperatively (measured via frequency scan immediately after insertion) and postoperative audiometric thresholds at activation, the difference between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds was significantly lower (i.e., better) for electrodes completely located in ST. These data support the notion that changes in cochlear physiology occur in the time period between electrode insertion and activation, and are more pronounced for electrodes that translocate into the SV. Further, these data suggest that ECochG may hold clinical utility providing surgeons with feedback regarding insertion trauma as well as information regarding expected hearing preservation. Additional data are needed with larger sample sizes and broader distributions of preoperative audiometric thresholds in the low-frequency region to thoroughly investigate this relationship.

      We also sought to examine whether various objective measures of CM amplitude during electrode insertion (measured via insertion scan) were related to either scalar location or hearing preservation outcomes. In order to objectively assess this relationship, we chose to record the following: (1) rise in CM amplitude from start of insertion at the round window to the peak value during insertion, and (2) drop in CM from the peak value during insertion to completion of insertion. Neither of these measures was found to be associated with scalar location or hearing preservation. It is possible that the small sample size of adequate insertion scans (n = 13) limited our analysis in this regard. Alternatively, we may have chosen outcomes measures that lack sensitivity to pick up differences between groups. Further studies assessing amplitude and phase characteristics of the ECochG waveform are warranted. It should be emphasized that no feedback was provided to the surgeon in the current study; we do however, plan to commence a thorough study of the utility of intraoperative ECochG in helping to guide surgical insertion. Should ECochG data obtained during insertion serve as a tool guiding surgical insertion, such feedback may allow for surgical modifications (e.g., redirecting insertion vector) resulting in less traumatic insertions, preservation of intracochlear structures, and potentially, higher rates of hearing preservation.

      Current clinical practice uses audiometric thresholds (e.g., Carlson et al., 2011; Cosetti et al., 2013; Sweeney et al., 2016) and retained unaided word recognition in the postoperative period as markers of surgical trauma (inflammation, fibrosis, and/or bone growth). Postoperative audiograms, however, provide only a gross estimate of peripheral auditory function. Furthermore, in standard clinical practice, postoperative acoustic word recognition is rarely obtained for the implanted ear. In some cases, preoperative acoustic word recognition is near zero, rendering retention of word recognition potentially an irrelevant measure. Despite these challenges, the biggest restriction in our current clinical practice is that we are currently unable to assess the effects of implantation trauma until the damage has occurred which is likely irreversible. Thus, we need a measure capable of providing real-time estimates of insertion trauma providing feedback to surgeons during electrode insertion. Theoretically speaking, reducing insertion trauma will potentially result in less fibrosis, bony growth, and cellular apoptosis—though the patient-specific inflammatory response remains an unknown variable. Additional value from such a measure of insertion trauma may help guide clinical decision making regarding administration of postoperative steroids in cases where concerns may arise regarding acoustic hearing preservation.

      In addition to investigating the effect of cochlear implantation on ECochG responses measured during surgical insertion, ECochG responses at postoperative activation were also assessed. Significant correlations between postoperative ECochG thresholds and pure-tone behavioral thresholds were noted across low frequencies. Our findings corroborate data recently published by Koka et al. (2016), in which strong agreement between postoperative ECochG thresholds and behavioral thresholds was also demonstrated. As physiologic estimates of hearing thresholds (via ECochG frequency scan) and behavioral measurements of hearing (pure-tone audiometry) correlate well when measured at the same time-point, the fact that intraoperative ECochG thresholds did not correlate with postoperative behavioral hearing herein further supports that cochlear physiology changes in the time between electrode insertion and activation. Future studies examining the differential changes that result directly from electrode insertion vs. those that occur in the acute post-insertion period are needed; controlling for scalar location in such reports appears to be very important. Taken together, ECochG thresholds may be capable of quantifying the degree on insertion trauma and resultant intracochlear physiological changes impacting behavioral hearing thresholds. Lastly, our data may also hold significant clinical value for patients unable to provide reliable behavioral data at the activation appointment and even possibly at subsequent postoperative audiology appointments.

      Limitations

      The primary limitation of the current study was the sample size (n = 18) and as a result, generalizations cannot be made at this time. Further, though ECochG including CM peak amplitude with electrode insertion may hold future surgical value regarding insertion trauma, no feedback was provided to the surgeons during the insertions on any of the cases included here. In order to thoroughly investigate the utility of this measure—particularly in helping to avoid scalar dislocation—real-time feedback is likely a necessary component. Finally, all participants in the current study were recipients of a conventional, pre-curved electrode, the AB mid-scala electrode. That is, none of the subjects were implanted with a lateral-wall electrode specifically designed for hearing preservation. Thus, it is possible that ECochG thresholds may not generalize to recipients of a shorter, lateral-wall electrode who may have lower, and potentially better, audiometric thresholds across a broader range of frequencies. Our research team is actively involved in ongoing efforts to investigate the clinical utility of ECochG as both a measure of intracochlear insertion trauma and postoperative audiometric thresholds in larger sample sizes with patients of varying residual hearing in the low-frequency and both pre-curved and lateral-wall electrodes.

      Summary

      More patients are presenting for CI who have measureable and clinically significant preoperative hearing thresholds. However, we are unable to appreciate the effects of CI insertion trauma and resultant postoperative audiometric thresholds until the point of device activation or even later when behavioral hearing thresholds are measured. The current study investigated the relationship between intraoperative and postoperative ECochG measurements and postoperative audiometry in a group of 18 patients with preoperative 250-Hz thresholds up to 80 dB HL who were implanted with an AB mid-scala electrode. Sixteen of the 18 patient consented to postoperative CT imaging allowing for determination of electrode scalar location. From the current dataset, the primary conclusions were as follows:

      Scalar translocation from ST to SV was associated with significantly higher shifts in low-frequency PTA when compared to electrodes inserted entirely within ST.

      There was no statistically significant relationship between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds at the group level.

      However, a trend was noted between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds when excluding patients for whom electrode crossed from ST to SV.

      Further, the difference between intraoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds was significantly lower (i.e., better) for electrodes completely located in ST.

      This leads us to conclude that ECochG may hold clinical utility providing surgeons with intraoperative feedback regarding insertion trauma as well as information regarding expected hearing preservation.

      There was a significant relationship between postoperative ECochG thresholds and postoperative audiometric thresholds.

      This measure may hold significant clinical value for patients unable to provide reliable behavioral data at the activation appointment (e.g., young children) and potentially for appointments when time does not allow for comprehensive device programming and behavioral audiometry.

      Further this suggests that changes in cochlear physiology following cochlear implantation may be evidenced by changes noted in ECochG data obtained intraoperatively and at various postoperative time points.

      Author contributions

      JH, BO, RD, RG, JN, and RL all collaborated on experimental design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. JH, RD, BO, RL, and RG recruited participants and collected data. BO and RL organized the results and conducted statistical analyses. RL was responsible for the supervision of the operating room methods and CT imaging. JN completed analyses of pre- and post-implant CT imaging. MB, AR, RL, DH, and GW inserted electrode arrays used for data collection. RL and RG supervised the project, secured funding, and provided guidance for methodology and interpretation of findings.

      Conflict of interest statement

      RG is on the audiology advisory board for Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Americas and the clinical advisory board for Frequency Therapeutics. RL is a consultant for Advanced Bionics, Cochlear Americas, and Ototronix. DH is on the surgical advisory boards for Cochlear, MED-EL, AB, Stryker, Anspach, and Oticon Medical. MB is on the surgical advisory board for MED-EL and is a consultant for Oticon Medical. AR is on the surgical advisory boards for Cochlear, MED-EL, AB, Stryker, Olympus, and Grace Medical. GW is on the surgical advisory board for Oticon Medical and is a consultant for AB, Cochlear, and MED-EL. The other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that directly affected the current research.

      This research was supported by the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and the National Institute of Health (NIH, R01DC008408, R01DC009404, and R01DC014037). The methods of this study were approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board (IRB# 151808). The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the following individuals: Dr. Kanthaiah Koka for his counsel regarding software and comments on a previous version of this manuscript, Dr. Mary Dietrich for her statistical guidance, Dr. Linsey Sunderhaus for her assistance with managing the CT images, Ashudee Kirk, M.S. for her assistance with obtaining the CT images, and Dr. Ally Sisler-Dinwiddie, Dr. Adrian Taylor, and Alex Chern for their assistance with data collection. Portions of this dataset will be presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings (COSM) in San Diego, CA, April 26–30, 2017 and at the 15th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children in San Francisco, CA, July 26–29, 2017.

      References Acharya A. N. Tavora-Vieira D. Rajan G. P. (2016). Using the implant electrode array to conduct real-time intraoperative hearing monitoring during pediatric cochlear implantation: preliminary experiences. Otol. Neurotol. 37, e148e153. 10.1097/mao.000000000000095026756149 Adunka O. F. Giardina C. K. Formeister E. J. Choudhury B. Buchman C. A. Fitzpatrick D. C. (2016). Round window electrocochleography before and after cochlear implant electrode insertion. Laryngoscope 126, 11931200. 10.1002/lary.2560226360623 Adunka O. Gstoettner W. Hambek M. Unkelbach M. H. Radeloff A. Kiefer J. (2004). Preservation of basal inner ear structures in cochlear implantation. ORL 66, 306312. 10.1159/00008188715668529 Calloway N. H. Fitzpatrick D. C. Campbell A. P. Iseli C. Pulver S. Buchman C. A. . (2014). Intracochlear electrocochleography during cochlear implantation. Otol. Neurotol. 35, 14511457. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000045124892369 Campbell L. Kaicer A. Briggs R. O'Leary S. (2015). Cochlear response telemetry: intracochlear electrocochleography via cochlear implant neural response telemetry pilot study results. Otol. Neurotol. 36, 399405. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000067825473960 Campbell L. Kaicer A. Sly D. Iseli C. Wei B. Briggs R. . (2016). Intraoperative real-time cochlear response telemetry predicts hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Otol. Neurotol. 37, 332338. 10.1097/mao.000000000000097226859542 Carlson M. L. Driscoll C. L. W. Gifford R. H. Service G. J. Tombers N. M. Hughes-Borst B. J. . (2011). Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol. Neurotol. 32, 962968. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318220452621659922 Choudhury B. Fitzpatrick D. C. Buchman C. A. Wei B. P. Dillon M. T. He S. . (2012). Intraoperative round window recordings to acoustic stimuli from cochlear implant patients. Otol. Neurotol. 33, 15071515. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31826dbc8023047261 Cosetti M. K. Friedmann D. R. Zhu B. Z. Heman-Ackah S. E. Fang Y. Keller R. G. . (2013). The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode. Otol. Neurotol. 34, 516521. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318278521023449440 Cullen J. K. Ellis M. S. Berlin C. I. Lousteau R. J. (1972). Human acoustic nerve action potential recordings from the tympanic membrane without anesthesia. Acta Otolaryngol. 74, 1522. 10.3109/000164872091284175068755 Dalbert A. Huber A. Veraguth D. Roosli C. Pfiffner F. (2016). Assessment of cochlear trauma during cochlear implantation using electrocochleography and cone beam computed tomography. Otol. Neurotol. 37, 446453. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000099826945317 Dalbert A. Pfiffner F. Röösli C. Thoele K. Sim J. H. Gerig R. . (2015a). Extra- and intracochlear electrocochleography in cochlear implant recipients. Audiol. Neurootol. 20, 339348. 10.1159/00043874226340649 Dalbert A. Sim J. H. Gerig R. Pfiffner F. Roosli C. Huber A. (2015b). Correlation of electrophysiological properties and hearing preservation in cochlear implant patients. Otol. Neurotol. 36, 11721180. 10.1097/mao.000000000000076825839980 Dedhia K. Worman T. Meredith M. A. Rubinstein J. T. (2016). Patterns of long-term hearing loss in hearing preservation cochlear implant surgery. Otol. Neurotol. 37, 478486. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000101127050648 Dorman M. F. Gifford R. H. (2010). Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int. J. Audiol. 49, 912919. 10.3109/14992027.2010.50911320874053 Dunn C. C. Perreau A. Gantz B. Tyler R. S. (2010). Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 21, 4451. 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.620085199 Durrant J. D. Wang J. Ding D. L. Salvi R. J. (1998). Are inner or outer hair cells the source of summating potentials recorded from the round window? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 370377. 9670530 Eshraghi A. A. Ahmed J. Krysiak E. Ila K. Ashman P. Telischi F. F. . (2016). Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 137, 384388. 10.1080/00016489.2016.125649927918225 Eshraghi A. A. Gupta C. Van De Water T. R. Bohorquez J. E. Garnham C. Bas E. . (2013). Molecular mechanisms involved in cochlear implantation trauma and the protection of hearing and auditory sensory cells by inhibition of c-Jun-N-terminal kinase signaling. Laryngoscope 123(Suppl.), S1S14. 10.1002/lary.2390223382052 Eshraghi A. A. Van de Water T. R. (2006). Cochlear implantation trauma and noise-induced hearing loss: apoptosis and therapeutic strategies. Anat. Rec. A Discov. Mol. Cell. Evol. Biol. 288, 473481. 10.1002/ar.a.2030516550592 Ferraro J. (2010). Electrocochleography: a review of recording approaches, clinical applications, and new findings in adults and children. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 21, 145152. 10.3766/jaaa.21.3.220211118 Finley C. C. Holden T. A. Holden L. K. Whiting B. R. Chole R. A. Neely G. J. . (2008). Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol. Neurotol. 29, 920928. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f49218667935 Fitzpatrick D. C. Campbell A. Choudhury B. Dillon M. Forgues M. Buchman C. A. . (2014). Round window electrocochleography just prior to cochlear implantation: relationship to word recognition outcomes in adults HHS public access. Otol. Neurotol. 35, 6471. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000219 Forgues M. Koehn H. A. Dunnon A. K. Pulver S. H. Buchman C. A. Adunka O. F. . (2014). Distinguishing hair cell from neural potentials recorded at the round window. J. Neurophysiol. 111, 580593. 10.1152/jn.00446.201324133227 Friedland D. R. Venick H. S. Niparko J. K. (2003). Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol. Neurotol. 24, 582589. 10.1097/00129492-200307000-0000912851549 Gifford R. H. Davis T. J. Sunderhaus L. W. Menapace C. Buck B. Crosson J. . (2017). Combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) with hearing preservation: effect of cochlear implant low-frequency cutoff on speech understanding and perceived listening difficulty. Ear Hear. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000418 Gifford R. H. Dorman M. F. Skarzynski H. Lorens A. Polak M. Driscoll C. L. W. . (2013). Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear. 34, 413425. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827e816323446225 Gifford R. H. Driscoll C. L. W. Davis T. J. Fiebig P. Micco A. Dorman M. F. (2015). A within-subject comparison of bimodal hearing, bilateral cochlear implantation, and bilateral cochlear implantation with bilateral hearing preservation: high-performing patients. Otol. Neurotol. 36, 13311337. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000080426164443 Gifford R. H. Grantham D. W. Sheffield S. W. Davis T. J. Dwyer R. Dorman M. F. (2014). Localization and interaural time difference (ITD) thresholds for cochlear implant recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Hear. Res. 312, 2837. 10.1016/j.heares.2014.02.00724607490 Holden L. K. Finley C. C. Firszt J. B. Holden T. A. Brenner C. Potts L. G. . (2013). Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 34, 342360. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa723348845 Jurawitz M.-C. Büchner A. Harpel T. Schüssler M. Majdani O. Lesinski-Schiedat A. . (2014). Hearing preservation outcomes with different cochlear implant electrodes: nucleus® HYBRID™-L24 and nucleus freedom™ CI422. Audiol. Neurootol. 19, 293309. 10.1159/00036060125277083 Kamakura T. Nadol J. B. (2016). Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human. Hear. Res. 339, 132141. 10.1016/j.heares.2016.06.01527371868 Koka K. Saoji A. A. Litvak L. M. (2016). Electrocochleography in cochlear implant recipients with residual hearing: comparison with audiometric thresholds Ear Hear. 38, e161e167. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000385 Loiselle L. H. Dorman M. F. Yost W. A. Cook S. J. Gifford R. H. (2016). Using ILD or ITD cues for sound source localization and speech understanding in a complex listening environment by listeners with bilateral and with hearing-preservation cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 59, 810. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-035527411035 Loiselle L. H. Dorman M. F. Yost W. A. Gifford R. H. (2015). Sound source localization by hearing preservation patients with and without symmetrical low-frequency acoustic hearing. Audiol. Neurootol. 20, 166171. 10.1159/00036788325832907 Mandala M. Colletti L. Tonoli G. Colletti V. (2012). Electrocochleography during cochlear implantation for hearing preservation. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 146, 774781. 10.1177/019459981143589522291043 Noble J. H. Schuman T. A. Wright C. G. Labadie R. F. Dawant B. M. (2011). Automatic identification of cochlear implant electrode arrays for post-operative assessment. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 7962. 10.1117/12.87849026041945 Palmer A. R. Russell I. J. (1986). Phase-locking in the cochlear nerve of the guinea-pig and its relation to the receptor potential of inner hair-cells. Hear. Res. 24, 115. 3759671 Patuzzi R. B. Yates G. K. Johnstone B. M. (1989). Outer hair cell receptor current and sensorineural hearing loss. Hear. Res. 42, 4772. 10.1016/0378-5955(89)90117-22684949 Plant K. Babic L. (2016). Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant. Int. J. Audiol. 55(Suppl. 2), S31S38. 10.3109/14992027.2016.115060926987051 Plant K. McDermott H. van Hoesel R. Dawson P. Cowan R. (2016). Factors predicting postoperative unilateral and bilateral speech recognition in adult cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing. Ear Hear. 37, 153163. 10.1097/AUD.000000000000023326462170 Poch-Broto J. Carricondo F. Bhathal B. Iglesias M.-C. López-Moya J. Rodríguez F. . (2009). Cochlear microphonic audiometry: a new hearing test for objective diagnosis of deafness. Acta Otolaryngol. 129, 749754. 10.1080/0001648080239896218777216 Prijs V. F. (1991). Evaluation of electrocochleographic audiogram determination in infants. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 482, 2733. 10.3109/000164891091280251897359 Radeloff A. Shehata-Dieler W. Scherzed A. Rak K. Harnisch W. Hagen R. . (2012). Intraoperative monitoring using cochlear microphonics in cochlear implant patients with residual hearing. Otol. Neurotol. 33, 348354. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318248ea8622377649 Rader T. Fastl H. Baumann U. (2013). Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear. 34, 324332. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318272f18923263408 Rosen S. (1992). Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 336, 367373. 10.1098/rstb.1992.00701354376 Rubinstein J. T. Parkinson W. S. Tyler R. S. Gantz B. J. (1999). Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am. J. Otol. 20, 445452. 10431885 Santa Maria P. L. Gluth M. B. Yuan Y. Atlas M. D. Blevins N. H. (2014). Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation: a meta-analysis. Otol. Neurotol. 35, e256e269. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000056125233333 Schoonhoven R. Prijs V. F. Grote J. J. (1996). Response thresholds in electrocochleography and their relation to the pure tone audiogram. Ear Hear. 17, 266275. 10.1097/00003446-199606000-000098807268 Scott W. C. Giardina C. K. Pappa A. K. Fontenot T. E. Anderson M. L. Dillon M. T. . (2016). The compound action potential in subjects receiving a cochlear implant. Otol. Neurotol. 37, 16541661. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000122427749750 Skarzynski H. Matusiak M. Lorens A. Furmanek M. Pilka A. Skarzynski P. H. (2016). Preservation of cochlear structures and hearing when using the Nucleus Slim Straight (CI422) electrode in children. J. Laryngol. Otol. 130, 332339. 10.1017/S002221511500343626763105 GraphPad Software Inc. (2012). GraphPad Prism. GraphPad. Sohmer H. Kinarti R. Gafni M. (1980). The source along the basilar membrane of the cochlear microphonic potential recorded by surface electrodes in man. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 49, 506514. 10.1016/0013-4694(80)90393-46158432 Sweeney A. D. Hunter J. B. Carlson M. L. Rivas A. Bennett M. L. Gifford R. H. . (2016). Durability of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes and scala tympani insertion. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 154, 907913. 10.1177/019459981663054526908553 Van Abel K. M. Dunn C. C. Sladen D. P. Oleson J. J. Beatty C. W. Neff B. A. . (2015). Hearing preservation among patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Otol. Neurotol. 36, 416421. 10.1097/MAO.000000000000070325575373 Verpy E. Weil D. Leibovici M. Goodyear R. J. Hamard G. Houdon C. . (2008). Stereocilin-deficient mice reveal the origin of cochlear waveform distortions. Nature 456, 255258. 10.1038/nature0738018849963 Wanna G. B. Noble J. H. Carlson M. L. Gifford R. H. Dietrich M. S. Haynes D. S. . (2014). Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124, S1S7. 10.1002/lary.2472824764083 Yoshie N. (1973). Diagnostic significance of the electrocochleogram in clinical audiometry. Audiology 12, 504539. 10.3109/002060973090716664582925 Yoshie N. Ohashi T. Suzuki T. (1967). Non-surgical recording of auditory nerve action potentials in man. Laryngoscope 77, 7685. 10.1288/00005537-196701000-000066017367 Zhang M. (2012). High-frequency hearing impairment assessed with cochlear microphonics. Acta Otolaryngol. 132, 967973. 10.3109/00016489.2012.67968822667466
      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016macpie.com.cn
      www.lfchain.com.cn
      www.hi04.com.cn
      www.u302.org.cn
      trenso.com.cn
      qsbk.org.cn
      www.sjzylzm.com.cn
      sybn100.com.cn
      szcxj5288.com.cn
      wqchain.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p