Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen

•Motion of ear structures differ maximally 10 dB in average between fresh frozen and Thiel conserved human specimens.•First report comparing the effect of conservation methods on middle-ear motion using the same specimen.•Conserved specimens have similar middle ear motion to fresh frozen specimens w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Hearing research 2021-03, Vol.401, p.108152-108152, Article 108152
Hauptverfasser: Graf, Lukas, Arnold, Andreas, Roushan, Kourosh, Honegger, Flurin, Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena, Stieger, Christof
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 108152
container_issue
container_start_page 108152
container_title Hearing research
container_volume 401
creator Graf, Lukas
Arnold, Andreas
Roushan, Kourosh
Honegger, Flurin
Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena
Stieger, Christof
description •Motion of ear structures differ maximally 10 dB in average between fresh frozen and Thiel conserved human specimens.•First report comparing the effect of conservation methods on middle-ear motion using the same specimen.•Conserved specimens have similar middle ear motion to fresh frozen specimens which facilitates long-term experiments. As an alternative to fresh temporal bones, Thiel conserved specimens can be used in the study of ear mechanics. Conserved temporal bones do not decay, permit long-term experiments and overcome problems with limited access to fresh (frozen) temporal bones. Air conduction motion of the tympanic membrane (TM), stapes (ST) and round window (RW) in Thiel specimens is similar to that of fresh specimens according to reports in the literature. Our study compares this motion directly before and after conservation for the same specimens. The magnitude of motion of TM, ST and RW elicited by acoustic stimulation via the external auditory canal was measured using single point laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV) accessed through a posterior tympanotomy. For the initial measurements (10 ears), fresh frozen whole heads were thawed for at least 24 h. Afterwards, the entire whole heads were embalmed according to the Thiel embalming method and measurements were repeated 3 and 12 months later. The magnitudes of TM, ST and RW motion before and after Thiel conservation differed maximally 10 dB on average. A significant increase in TM motion was observed at low frequencies only after long term conservation (12 months). ST motions decreased significantly between 161 and 5300 Hz after 3 months of Thiel conservation. Over the same time period RW motions decreased significantly between 100 and 161 Hz and 489–788 Hz. The ST and RW motions across all measured frequencies were lower after 3 months by 5.7 dB and 7.1 dB, respectively, without further changes after 12 months of conservation. The mean phase shift between ST and RW motion was only 2.1° for frequencies below 450 Hz. Thiel embalming changes motion of TM after long term conservation. ST and RW motion changed mainly after short term conservation. The phase shifts close to 180° between ST and RW motion indicates that the cochlea was still filled with liquid without air bubbles. The results show that Thiel conserved specimens can be used as an alternative model to fresh frozen preparations with some limitations when studying mechanics of the normal human ear, for example, in implant design.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108152
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2475088168</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378595520304238</els_id><sourcerecordid>2475088168</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-aa8b2683c38ad0fed8b5a23af8b4ef019f17bd100d8e571ac7a09b4de648d04a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6D0R69NI1aZI2vQii6wcseNFzSJMJzbJt1qS74L83patHL_PFO_MyD0LXBC8JJuXdZtmCChCXBS7GkSC8OEFzIiqRc1GTUzTHdKxrzmfoIsYNxoRTVpyjGaVUiJKVc_S0shb0kHmbad9HCAc1ON9nHQytN1mqkknqdKt6p2NmfciGFrKouhR2oF0H_SU6s2ob4eqYF-jzefXx-Jqv31_eHh_WuWZYDLlSoilKQTUVymALRjRcFVRZ0TCwmNSWVI0hGBsBvCJKVwrXDTNQMmEwU3SBbqe7u-C_9hAH2bmoYbtVPfh9lAWrOBaCJI8FYpNUBx9jACt3wXUqfEuC5chPbuTET4785MQvrd0cHfZNB-Zv6RdYEtxPAkh_HhwEGbWDXoNxIXGUxrv_HX4AcR-DCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2475088168</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Graf, Lukas ; Arnold, Andreas ; Roushan, Kourosh ; Honegger, Flurin ; Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena ; Stieger, Christof</creator><creatorcontrib>Graf, Lukas ; Arnold, Andreas ; Roushan, Kourosh ; Honegger, Flurin ; Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena ; Stieger, Christof</creatorcontrib><description>•Motion of ear structures differ maximally 10 dB in average between fresh frozen and Thiel conserved human specimens.•First report comparing the effect of conservation methods on middle-ear motion using the same specimen.•Conserved specimens have similar middle ear motion to fresh frozen specimens which facilitates long-term experiments. As an alternative to fresh temporal bones, Thiel conserved specimens can be used in the study of ear mechanics. Conserved temporal bones do not decay, permit long-term experiments and overcome problems with limited access to fresh (frozen) temporal bones. Air conduction motion of the tympanic membrane (TM), stapes (ST) and round window (RW) in Thiel specimens is similar to that of fresh specimens according to reports in the literature. Our study compares this motion directly before and after conservation for the same specimens. The magnitude of motion of TM, ST and RW elicited by acoustic stimulation via the external auditory canal was measured using single point laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV) accessed through a posterior tympanotomy. For the initial measurements (10 ears), fresh frozen whole heads were thawed for at least 24 h. Afterwards, the entire whole heads were embalmed according to the Thiel embalming method and measurements were repeated 3 and 12 months later. The magnitudes of TM, ST and RW motion before and after Thiel conservation differed maximally 10 dB on average. A significant increase in TM motion was observed at low frequencies only after long term conservation (12 months). ST motions decreased significantly between 161 and 5300 Hz after 3 months of Thiel conservation. Over the same time period RW motions decreased significantly between 100 and 161 Hz and 489–788 Hz. The ST and RW motions across all measured frequencies were lower after 3 months by 5.7 dB and 7.1 dB, respectively, without further changes after 12 months of conservation. The mean phase shift between ST and RW motion was only 2.1° for frequencies below 450 Hz. Thiel embalming changes motion of TM after long term conservation. ST and RW motion changed mainly after short term conservation. The phase shifts close to 180° between ST and RW motion indicates that the cochlea was still filled with liquid without air bubbles. The results show that Thiel conserved specimens can be used as an alternative model to fresh frozen preparations with some limitations when studying mechanics of the normal human ear, for example, in implant design.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-5955</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108152</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33388646</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation ; Embalming ; Humans ; Incus ; Laser Doppler vibrometry ; Middle ear mechanics ; Ossicular Prosthesis ; Round window ; Round Window, Ear ; Stapes ; Temporal Bone ; Thiel conservation</subject><ispartof>Hearing research, 2021-03, Vol.401, p.108152-108152, Article 108152</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-aa8b2683c38ad0fed8b5a23af8b4ef019f17bd100d8e571ac7a09b4de648d04a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-aa8b2683c38ad0fed8b5a23af8b4ef019f17bd100d8e571ac7a09b4de648d04a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7456-8959 ; 0000-0002-9349-3312</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2020.108152$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33388646$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Graf, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roushan, Kourosh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honegger, Flurin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stieger, Christof</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen</title><title>Hearing research</title><addtitle>Hear Res</addtitle><description>•Motion of ear structures differ maximally 10 dB in average between fresh frozen and Thiel conserved human specimens.•First report comparing the effect of conservation methods on middle-ear motion using the same specimen.•Conserved specimens have similar middle ear motion to fresh frozen specimens which facilitates long-term experiments. As an alternative to fresh temporal bones, Thiel conserved specimens can be used in the study of ear mechanics. Conserved temporal bones do not decay, permit long-term experiments and overcome problems with limited access to fresh (frozen) temporal bones. Air conduction motion of the tympanic membrane (TM), stapes (ST) and round window (RW) in Thiel specimens is similar to that of fresh specimens according to reports in the literature. Our study compares this motion directly before and after conservation for the same specimens. The magnitude of motion of TM, ST and RW elicited by acoustic stimulation via the external auditory canal was measured using single point laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV) accessed through a posterior tympanotomy. For the initial measurements (10 ears), fresh frozen whole heads were thawed for at least 24 h. Afterwards, the entire whole heads were embalmed according to the Thiel embalming method and measurements were repeated 3 and 12 months later. The magnitudes of TM, ST and RW motion before and after Thiel conservation differed maximally 10 dB on average. A significant increase in TM motion was observed at low frequencies only after long term conservation (12 months). ST motions decreased significantly between 161 and 5300 Hz after 3 months of Thiel conservation. Over the same time period RW motions decreased significantly between 100 and 161 Hz and 489–788 Hz. The ST and RW motions across all measured frequencies were lower after 3 months by 5.7 dB and 7.1 dB, respectively, without further changes after 12 months of conservation. The mean phase shift between ST and RW motion was only 2.1° for frequencies below 450 Hz. Thiel embalming changes motion of TM after long term conservation. ST and RW motion changed mainly after short term conservation. The phase shifts close to 180° between ST and RW motion indicates that the cochlea was still filled with liquid without air bubbles. The results show that Thiel conserved specimens can be used as an alternative model to fresh frozen preparations with some limitations when studying mechanics of the normal human ear, for example, in implant design.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation</subject><subject>Embalming</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incus</subject><subject>Laser Doppler vibrometry</subject><subject>Middle ear mechanics</subject><subject>Ossicular Prosthesis</subject><subject>Round window</subject><subject>Round Window, Ear</subject><subject>Stapes</subject><subject>Temporal Bone</subject><subject>Thiel conservation</subject><issn>0378-5955</issn><issn>1878-5891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6D0R69NI1aZI2vQii6wcseNFzSJMJzbJt1qS74L83patHL_PFO_MyD0LXBC8JJuXdZtmCChCXBS7GkSC8OEFzIiqRc1GTUzTHdKxrzmfoIsYNxoRTVpyjGaVUiJKVc_S0shb0kHmbad9HCAc1ON9nHQytN1mqkknqdKt6p2NmfciGFrKouhR2oF0H_SU6s2ob4eqYF-jzefXx-Jqv31_eHh_WuWZYDLlSoilKQTUVymALRjRcFVRZ0TCwmNSWVI0hGBsBvCJKVwrXDTNQMmEwU3SBbqe7u-C_9hAH2bmoYbtVPfh9lAWrOBaCJI8FYpNUBx9jACt3wXUqfEuC5chPbuTET4785MQvrd0cHfZNB-Zv6RdYEtxPAkh_HhwEGbWDXoNxIXGUxrv_HX4AcR-DCA</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Graf, Lukas</creator><creator>Arnold, Andreas</creator><creator>Roushan, Kourosh</creator><creator>Honegger, Flurin</creator><creator>Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena</creator><creator>Stieger, Christof</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7456-8959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9349-3312</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen</title><author>Graf, Lukas ; Arnold, Andreas ; Roushan, Kourosh ; Honegger, Flurin ; Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena ; Stieger, Christof</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-aa8b2683c38ad0fed8b5a23af8b4ef019f17bd100d8e571ac7a09b4de648d04a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation</topic><topic>Embalming</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incus</topic><topic>Laser Doppler vibrometry</topic><topic>Middle ear mechanics</topic><topic>Ossicular Prosthesis</topic><topic>Round window</topic><topic>Round Window, Ear</topic><topic>Stapes</topic><topic>Temporal Bone</topic><topic>Thiel conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graf, Lukas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roushan, Kourosh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honegger, Flurin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stieger, Christof</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Hearing research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graf, Lukas</au><au>Arnold, Andreas</au><au>Roushan, Kourosh</au><au>Honegger, Flurin</au><au>Müller-Gerbl, Magdalena</au><au>Stieger, Christof</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen</atitle><jtitle>Hearing research</jtitle><addtitle>Hear Res</addtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>401</volume><spage>108152</spage><epage>108152</epage><pages>108152-108152</pages><artnum>108152</artnum><issn>0378-5955</issn><eissn>1878-5891</eissn><abstract>•Motion of ear structures differ maximally 10 dB in average between fresh frozen and Thiel conserved human specimens.•First report comparing the effect of conservation methods on middle-ear motion using the same specimen.•Conserved specimens have similar middle ear motion to fresh frozen specimens which facilitates long-term experiments. As an alternative to fresh temporal bones, Thiel conserved specimens can be used in the study of ear mechanics. Conserved temporal bones do not decay, permit long-term experiments and overcome problems with limited access to fresh (frozen) temporal bones. Air conduction motion of the tympanic membrane (TM), stapes (ST) and round window (RW) in Thiel specimens is similar to that of fresh specimens according to reports in the literature. Our study compares this motion directly before and after conservation for the same specimens. The magnitude of motion of TM, ST and RW elicited by acoustic stimulation via the external auditory canal was measured using single point laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV) accessed through a posterior tympanotomy. For the initial measurements (10 ears), fresh frozen whole heads were thawed for at least 24 h. Afterwards, the entire whole heads were embalmed according to the Thiel embalming method and measurements were repeated 3 and 12 months later. The magnitudes of TM, ST and RW motion before and after Thiel conservation differed maximally 10 dB on average. A significant increase in TM motion was observed at low frequencies only after long term conservation (12 months). ST motions decreased significantly between 161 and 5300 Hz after 3 months of Thiel conservation. Over the same time period RW motions decreased significantly between 100 and 161 Hz and 489–788 Hz. The ST and RW motions across all measured frequencies were lower after 3 months by 5.7 dB and 7.1 dB, respectively, without further changes after 12 months of conservation. The mean phase shift between ST and RW motion was only 2.1° for frequencies below 450 Hz. Thiel embalming changes motion of TM after long term conservation. ST and RW motion changed mainly after short term conservation. The phase shifts close to 180° between ST and RW motion indicates that the cochlea was still filled with liquid without air bubbles. The results show that Thiel conserved specimens can be used as an alternative model to fresh frozen preparations with some limitations when studying mechanics of the normal human ear, for example, in implant design.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>33388646</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.heares.2020.108152</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7456-8959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9349-3312</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-5955
ispartof Hearing research, 2021-03, Vol.401, p.108152-108152, Article 108152
issn 0378-5955
1878-5891
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2475088168
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Acoustic Stimulation
Embalming
Humans
Incus
Laser Doppler vibrometry
Middle ear mechanics
Ossicular Prosthesis
Round window
Round Window, Ear
Stapes
Temporal Bone
Thiel conservation
title Effect of conservation method on ear mechanics for the same specimen
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T11%3A43%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20conservation%20method%20on%20ear%20mechanics%20for%20the%20same%20specimen&rft.jtitle=Hearing%20research&rft.au=Graf,%20Lukas&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=401&rft.spage=108152&rft.epage=108152&rft.pages=108152-108152&rft.artnum=108152&rft.issn=0378-5955&rft.eissn=1878-5891&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.heares.2020.108152&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2475088168%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2475088168&rft_id=info:pmid/33388646&rft_els_id=S0378595520304238&rfr_iscdi=true