Two microsurgery approaches for local drug delivery to the inner ear are described here and compared in terms of impact on hearing parameters, cochlear cytoarchitecture and expression of inflammatory markers.
We present two minimally invasive microsurgical techniques in rodents for specific drug delivery into the middle ear so that it may reach the inner ear. The first procedure consists of perforation of the tympanic bulla, termed bullostomy; the second one is a transtympanic injection. Both emulate human clinical intratympanic procedures.
Chitosan-glycerophosphate (CGP) and Ringer´s Lactate buffer (RL) were used as biocompatible vehicles for local drug delivery. CGP is a nontoxic biodegradable polymer widely used in pharmaceutical applications. It is a viscous liquid at RT but it congeals to a semi solid phase at body temperature. RL is an isotonic solution used for intravenous administrations in humans. A small volume of this vehicle is precisely placed on the Round Window (RW) niche by means of a bullostomy. A transtympanic injection fills the middle ear and allows less control but broader access to the inner ear.
The safety profiles of both techniques were studied and compared by using functional and morphological tests. Hearing was evaluated by registering the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) before and several times after microsurgery. The cytoarchitecture and preservation level of cochlear structures were studied by conventional histological techniques in paraformaldehyde-fixed and decalcified cochlear samples. In parallel, unfixed cochlear samples were taken and immediately frozen to analyze gene expression profiles of inflammatory markers by quantitative Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR).
Both procedures are suitable as drug delivery methods into the mouse middle ear, although transtympanic injection proved to be less invasive compared to bullostomy.
Hearing impairment is the most frequent human sensory deficit and affects 5.3% of the worldwide population, and 30% of individuals over the age of 65 (http://www.who.int/topics/deafness/en, updated 2016). Hearing loss affects language acquisition in children and accelerates cognitive decline in older people. Therefore, it is a significant health-care problem with a tremendous socio-economic impact. It can be caused by genetic defects, environmental factors or a combination of both1, which in the end induce damage and death of hair cells and neurons in the cochlea. These cells do not regenerate in mammals, therefore cellular loss and concomitant hearing loss cannot be reversed. Clinical options are based on prosthetic devices, including hearing aids and cochlear, middle ear and bone conduction implants2. Unfortunately, there are no specific medical restorative treatments for hearing impairment and thus several research lines are focused on the development of preventive and reparative therapies. Novel therapeutic options include gene and cell therapies as well as development of small molecules for pharmacological therapy2.
One of the most important challenges in cochlear pharmacological therapy is drug delivery. Systemic treatments have limited efficacy in the cochlea due to the blood-labyrinth barrier3, continuous endothelium in contact with cochlear blood vessels, which acts as a physical and biochemical barrier to maintain inner ear fluid homeostasis, therefore limiting drug passage to the inner ear. It is permeable only to small liposoluble molecules, although permeability can be increased during cochlear inflammation, and also with the use of diuretics or osmotic agents. The volume of drug that eventually reaches the cochlea after systemic administration is reduced; therefore, high doses that could cause organic toxicity are required. In addition, hepatic metabolism of the drug can produce toxic or inactive metabolites4,5,6,7. In contrast, local interventions allow the placement of a known limited quantity of the drug into the middle or inner ear without undesirable side effects4,7,8,9. In current clinical practice, intratympanic administrations are limited to certain cochlear pathologies, such as gentamicin in Meniere's disease10, corticosteroids in sudden deafness, Meniere's disease, immune-mediated and noise induced hearing loss,11,12,13,14,15 and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) in sudden deafness4,16,17.
Formulations for local administration should preserve the delicate homeostasis (pH and osmolarity) of cochlear fluids. In addition, it is very important to maintain sterility throughout the process to avoid bacterial contamination of the cerebrospinal fluid. The excipient used for drug delivery should be biocompatible, nonototoxic and of the appropriate consistency. Liquid solutions are recommended for intracochlear injections, but are not suitable for the intratympanic route due to the clearance through the Eustachian tube. In this case, drugs are usually carried by semi-solid gels to increase their permanence in the middle ear4,18,19. Alternative delivery systems used as carriers to increase the passage of the drug to the inner ear are nanoparticles20 and adenoviruses21 Here we compared two vehicles: CGP and an RL solution. CGP is a hydrogel formed by chitosan, a linear polysaccharide composed of D-glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine obtained from crustacean shells, and β-glycerophosphate, a polyol that forms a shield of water around the chitosan chains and maintains it in liquid form. CGP is thermosensitive and can be degraded by lysozymes, allowing a sustained drug release in the middle ear22,23,24,25. Chitosan-base hydrogels are suitable vehicles for clinical applications such as drug delivery due to their lack of immunogenicity and lack of activation of local inflammatory reactions23,24. On the other hand, RL buffer is a non-pyrogenic isotonic solution (273 mOsm/L and pH 6.5) intended for intravenous administration in humans as a source of water and electrolytes, especially in blood loss, trauma or burn injuries because the byproducts of lactate metabolism in the liver counteract acidosis.
Here we describe and compare two surgical methods that have been refined for local drug delivery to the mouse inner ear. The safety profile of both techniques was evaluated by using functional, morphological and molecular tests. Hearing was evaluated using Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)26,27 performed before and after microsurgery at different times. End-point procedures were used to dissect the cochlea and compare the anatomical, cellular and molecular impact of these two microsurgical procedures.
Ensure that the animal handling procedures are in accordance with international and national regulations. The protocol follows the European Community 2010/63/EU and Spanish RD 53/2013 guidelines, respectively.
1. General Animal Handling
2. Hearing Assessment
NOTE: Track functional impact of microsurgical procedures by testing hearing before and many times after surgery (in this work 2, 7, 14 and 28 d postmicrosurgery) with non-invasive procedures such as ABR9.
3. Vehicle Preparation
4. Microsurgical Procedures
5. Morphological Evaluation of Cochlear Cytoarchitecture
6. Cochlear Gene Expression
Hearing was tested by ABR before and at several times after microsurgery to evaluate the impact on auditory function (Figure 1A). ABR registers were performed under anaesthesia to avoid animal movement and voltage artefacts and therefore improve its reproducibility27. Intraperitoneally administered ketamine based combinations or inhalatory isoflurane were usually employed to anesthetize animals during the ABR tests. The ketamine/xylazine combination provides a short-acting (2-3 min) induction and a stable, safe maintenance phase while performing ABR registers. It should be noted that isoflurane can affect ABR measurement sensitivity38. For ABR registers, subdermal electrodes are placed in specific locations (Figure 1B) and the electrical impedance is measured. If the impedance is 3 kOhm or higher, electrode positioning has to be checked to avoid alterations in ABR wave amplitude.
Intratympanic delivery is performed in mice by two microsurgical procedures (Figure 2). Exposure of the bulla during bullostomy involves retraction of the submandibular glands and digastric muscle. This procedure is carried out with extreme care because the carotid artery and vagal nerve are very close (Figure 2A). Next, the bulla is drilled to localize the stapedial artery and the RW membrane (Figure 2B). To avoid cracking bone, a small 0.5 mm aperture is made with a 27 G needle before drilling. The 34 G catheter is directed through the bullostomy towards the RW membrane and a small volume of vehicle is delivered onto the window niche (Figure 2C). The transtympanic injection is performed through an incision in the pars flaccida of the tympanic membrane with a 27 G needle; a larger one can provoke a tear in the membrane. Before the injection, we recommend making an additional incision in the pars tensa to allow the outflow of air during injection of the vehicle (Figure 2F). It is critical to avoid damage of the stapedial artery, a branch of internal carotid artery, which would lead to life-threatening bleeding.
Mice with bullostomy or transtympanic surgeries preserved hearing throughout the experiment, similar to non-operated controls (Figure 3). ABR thresholds in response to clicks and tone bursts did not change significantly after microsurgery compared to baseline values. No significant differences were observed between bullostomy and transtympanic approaches. Morphological studies were carried out to confirm correct vehicle delivery into the middle ear and to assess the potential changes caused by the procedures in cochlear cytoarchitecture. None of the main cochlear regions showed morphological alterations and animals from both procedures presented a similar morphology of all cochlear structures (Figure 4A). In addition, the cochlear profiles for gene expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines were also studied. Despite lack of functional differences in ABR data between the two procedures, bullostomy caused a stronger inflammatory response than the transtympanic approach (Figure 4B).
Figure 1. Experimental Design and Hearing Assessment. (A) Diagram of the experimental procedure. Hearing was evaluated with ABR before and after microsurgery. Cochlear samples were obtained 28 days after microsurgery. (B) Anesthetized mouse in prone position over the heating pad inside a sound-attenuating chamber, with subdermal electrodes placed in the scalp between the ears over the vertex of the skull (active, positive); in the parotid region below the pinna (reference, negative) and in the back (ground). The free-field speaker is placed at a fixed distance (5 cm) facing the right ear. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2. Microsurgery for Vehicle Application. (A) Ventral view of the tympanic bulla. The bullostomy is performed caudal to the facial nerve with a 27 G needle. (B) RWN and stapedial artery can be observed through the perforation. (C) The 34 G catheter is directed through the bullostomy toward the RW niche. (D) One month after the bullostomy, a small bony scar is present in the opening site (arrowhead). (E) Lateral view of the ear, showing the incision in the external ear canal and the tympanic membrane (square). (F) Detail of the tympanic membrane. A puncture was made at the caudal upper quadrant of the tympanic membrane using a 27 G needle (black asterisk, in the pars flaccida); the injection was made through this perforation using a 34 G catheter. An additional hole was made in the cranial inferior quadrant of the membrane (white asterisk, in the pars tensa) prior to the injection to balance the tympanic pressure. (G) View of the 34 G catheter through the puncture of the tympanic membrane. (H) View of the cochlear region 24 h after the microsurgery. RWN filled with vehicle solution (asterisk). Lat, lateral; Ro, rostral; Do, dorsal; Ma, malleus; Co, cochlea; OW, Oval window; RWN, round window niche. Scale bars = 200 µm in A, D, F; Scale bars = 100 µm in B, C, H; Scale bars = 1,000 µm in E, G. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3. Hearing Assessment. Evolution of ABR thresholds (mean ±SEM, in dB SPL) in response to click (A) and tone burst (B) stimuli, before and 7, 14 and 28 days after micro-surgery in male eight-week-old C57BL/6J mice. Bullostomy (orange; n = 11); transtympanic injection (blue; n = 6); non-operated (grey; n = 11), Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4. Cochlear Morphology and Gene Expression Analysis. (A) Morphology of the main cochlear structures at the base of the cochlea. Haematoxilin-eosin staining of mid-modiolar paraffin sections (7 µm), of ears from non-operated mice, and mice one month after microsurgery intervention by bullostomy or transtympanic injection. The scala media compartment (a,b,c) presents all the main components. Details of each of these structures (numbered boxes) are shown in the subsequent images: spiral ganglion (1), organ of Corti (2), spiral ligament (3) and stria vascularis (4). Inner hair cell (asterisk); outer hair cells (head of arrow). Scale bars = 100 µm in a,b,c; Scale bars = 50 µm in a-1,2,3,4. (B) Cochlear expression of inflammatory markers 28 d after the microsurgery. Comparison between bullostomy (orange) and transtympanic injection (blue) and to non-operated mice (white). *: non-operated vs. operated groups; ^: comparison between operated groups. Gene expression levels are represented as 2–ΔΔCt, or the n-fold difference relative to non-operated group.Values are presented as mean ± SEM of triplicates from pool samples of 3 mice per condition. Statistical significance: **p ≤0.01; ***p ≤0.001; ^^p ≤0.01; ^^^p ≤0.001. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Local drug delivery to the inner ear can be done directly by intracochlear injection or indirectly by intratympanic administration, placing the drug in the middle ear4,19,39. Intracochlear administration provides controlled and precise drug delivery to the cochlea, avoiding diffusion through window membranes, basal-to-apical concentration gradients and clearance through the Eustachian tube. However, it is usually a highly invasive procedure that requires a complex and delicate microsurgery7,39. In this context, the industry is developing new, coated, implantable devices for sustained drug release40,41. On the other hand, intratympanic administration is a minimally invasive and easy to perform procedure that allows the injection of larger volumes of the drug into the middle ear, although the pharmacokinetics is not easy to control. The majority of the drug is cleared through Eustachian tube and the remaining fraction has to diffuse through the RW membrane to reach the cochlea18. RW is the site of maximum absorption of substances from the middle ear into the perilymph-filled tympanic duct of the cochlea7. It is a semipermeable three layer structure, although its permeability depends on the drug characteristics (size, concentration, solubility and electrical charge) and on transmembrane transport systems (diffusion, active transport or phagocytosis)42. The oval window and otic capsules are alternative but less effective entrances to cochlea43,44.
Here we demonstrate and compare two microsurgical methods for targeted drug delivery into the mouse middle ear: bullostomy and transtympanic injection procedures. Common critical steps to these procedures include: i) an evaluation of hearing before and after the microsurgery, ii) preparation of a homogeneous vehicle solution under sterile conditions, iii) careful supervision of the anaesthetic procedure and monitoring of animal body temperature and constants, iv) slow placement of the appropriate volume of vehicle targeting the RW, and iv) taking cochlear samples to complete molecular and morphological analysis.
Retroauricular and ventral approaches for bullostomy have been described7,45. We used the ventral approximation because in our experience it has resulted in less morbidity and provided better access to the RW46. Transtympanic injections are usually carried out through the pars tensa of the tympanic membrane, anterior or posterior to the malleus manubrium12. In this work we performed a modification of the technique, an injection through the pars flaccida beyond the malleus with a previous additional puncture of the pars tensa to allow air evacuation during injection.
The transtympanic injection was less invasive than the bullostomy, although both microsurgeries were rapid (20 and 5 min per ear for bullostomy and transtympanic approach respectively), with short postoperative recuperation times and no morbidity. Most importantly, both procedures maintained hearing and the ABR parameters were identical to those determined before the microsurgery. The transtympanic approach takes less time than the bullostomy and can be performed in both ears of the same animal during the same intervention. Advantages of the transtympanic injection are thus that it can be performed bilaterally and repeated, if required. On the other hand, bullostomy provides direct visual access to the RW membrane and allows the filling of the RW niche. In contrast, transtympanic injection does not allow for control of vehicle placement in the RW niche.
The procedures reported in this work describe how to perform a local drug vehicle delivery to the middle ear for pre-clinical applications such as evaluation of ototoxicity and evaluation of efficacy in hearing loss. Two microsurgery procedures are described that provide alternative methods with specific advantages and drawbacks. Both preserve hearing and do not cause morphological alterations. Local inflammation is described as a potential complication of bullostomy. A set of complementary techniques are also described for postsurgical procedures, including hearing, morphological and inflammatory marker expression evaluations. Future applications for these techniques include the preclinical evaluation of new therapies for hearing loss, including genetic, cellular and pharmacological approaches, in animal models. Intratympanic administrations ensure the delivery of the treatment in the middle ear, in contact with the round window membrane, facilitating the passage into the perilymph without evident cochlear damage.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors wish to thank the Genomics and Noninvasive Neurofunctional Evaluation facilities (IIBM, CSIC-UAM) for their technical support. This work was supported by grants of the Spanish "Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad" (FEDER-SAF2014-53979-R) and the European Union (FP7-AFHELO and FP7-PEOPLE-TARGEAR) to IVN.
Ketamine (Imalgene) | Merial | # 2529 | CAUTION: avoid contact of the drug with skin or eyes or accidental self-inflicted injections |
Xylacine (Xilagesic) | Calier | # 6200025225 | |
Lubricant eye gel (Artific) | Angelini | # 784710 | |
Water pump | Gaymar | # TP472 | |
Subdermal needle electrodes | Spes Medica | # MN4013D10SM | |
Low Impedance Headstage (RA4LI) | Tucker-Davis Technologies | ||
Speakers (MF1 Multi-Field Magnetic Speaker) | Tucker-Davis Technologies | ||
System 3 Evoked Potential Workstation | Tucker-Davis Technologies | The System is composed of: RP2 processor, RA16 base station, PA5 attenuator, SA1 amplifier, MA3 microphone amplifier, RA4LI impedance headstage and RA4A medusa pre-amplifier | |
SigGenRP software | Tucker-Davis Technologies | ||
Warming pads (TP pads) | Gaymar | # TP3E | |
Statistics software (SPSS) | IBM | ||
Chitosan (deacetylated) | Sigma-Aldrich | # C3646 | |
Acetic acid (glacial) | VWR | # 20103.295 | CAUTION: flammable liquid, skin corrosion and respiratory and skin sensitizer |
Glycerophosphate | Sigma | # SLBG3671V | |
Ringer´s lactate buffer | Braun | # 1520-ESP | |
Medetomidine (Domtor) | Esteve | # 02400190 | |
Phentanile (Fentanest) | Kern Pharma | # 756650.2 | CAUTION: avoid contact of the drug with open wounds or accidental self-inflicted injections |
Isoflurane (IsoVet) | Braun | # 469860 | CAUTION: Avoid exposures at ceiling concentrations greater than 2ppm of any halogenated anesthetic agent over a sampling period not to exceed one hour. |
Surgical microscope (OPMI pico) | Zeiss | ||
Sterile drape (Foliodrape) | Hartmann | # 277546 | |
Sterilizer | Fine Science Tools | # 18000-45 | |
Scalpel blade | Swann Morton | # 0205 | CAUTION |
Scalpel handle | Fine Science Tools | # 91003-12 | |
Pividone iodine based antiseptic (Betadine) | Meda Pharma SAU | # M-12207 | |
Adventitia scissors (SAS18-R8) | S&T | # 12075-12 | |
Curved scissors | CM Instrumente | # AJ023-18 | |
Forceps | CM Instrumente | # BB019-18 | |
Gelatine sponge (Spongostan) | ProNaMAc | # MS0001 | |
Microlance 27G | Becton Dickinson | # 302200 | |
Microliter syringe (701 RN SYR) | Hamilton | # 80330 | |
Catheter (Microfil 34G) | World Precision Instruments | # MF34G-5 | |
Tissue Adhesive (Vetbond) | 3M | # 1469SB | |
Needle holder (Round handled needle holder) | Fine Science Tools | # 12075-12 | |
Silk surgical suture (Braided Silk 5/0) | Arago | # 990011 | |
Chlorhexidine (Cristalmina) | Salvat | # 787341 | |
Pentobarbital (Dolethal) | Ventoquinol | # VET00040 | CAUTION: avoid contact of the drug with open wounds or accidental self-inflicted injections |
Stereomicroscope (Leica) | Meyer Instruments | # MZ75 | |
Vannas Micro-dissecting (Eye) Scissors Spring Action | Harvard Apparatus | # 28483 | |
Jeweller’s forceps (Dumont) | Fine Science Tools | # 11252-00 | |
RNase Decontamination Solution (RNaseZap) | Sigma-Aldrich | # R2020 | |
RNA Stabilization Solution (RNAlater) | Thermo Fisher Scientific | # R0901 | |
Purification RNA kit (RNeasy) | Qiagen | # 74104 | |
cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit | Thermo Fisher Scientific | # 4368814 | |
Gene expression assay (TaqMan probes) | Thermo Fisher Scientific | Il1b: Mm00446190_m1 Il6: Mm00446190_m1 Tgfb1: Mm01178820_m1 Tnfa: Mm99999068_m1 Il10: Mm00439614_m1 Dusp1: Mm00457274_g1 Hprt1: Mm00446968_m1 |
|
Real-time PCR System (7900HT) | Applied Biosystems | # 4329001 | |
Paraformaldehyde (PFA) | Merck | # 1040051000 | TOXIC: PFA is a potential carcinogen |
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) | Merck | # 405491 | CAUTION: harmful if inhaled, may cause damage to respiratory tract through prolonged or repeated exposure if inhaled. |
Hematoxylin solution | Sigma-Aldrich | # HHS16 | |
Eosin Y | Sigma-Aldrich | # E4382 | Hazards: causes serious eye irritation |