Shuman He1, John Grose, Anna X Hang, Craig A Buchman. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7600, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of cochlear implant-elicited cortical auditory evoked potentials (eCAEP) in children with cochlear nerve deficiency (CND). STUDY DESIGN: Case control series. SETTING: Tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Seven children with CND that have a cochlear implant in their affected ear. Four children without CND served as controls. INTERVENTION(S): eCAEPs were elicited by activation of individual cochlear implant electrodes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Onset responses (P1-N1-P2 complex). RESULTS: Three of 7 CND children demonstrated eCAEP responses across a broad range of electrodes despite having limited or no open set speech perception abilities using their implants. Two of these children had eCAEPs that were characterized by substantial variability in latency, amplitude, and number of electrodes with identifiable responses. The remaining 4 ears with CND and poor speech perception had multiphasic responses that are inconsistent with eCAEPs. Non-CND ears with excellent speech perception abilities demonstrated robust responses on all electrodes stimulated. CONCLUSION: Abent eCAEP responses were indicative of poor open-set speech perception skills in all cases. However, eCAEP onset responses were measurable in some children with imaging evidence of CND, indicating probable cochlear nerve hypoplasia rather than aplasia. That some children with CND and poor speech perception had robust eCAEPs in some instances makes this particular measure of limited use for predicting good speech perception outcomes after cochlear implantation in these children. The origin of multiphasic responses remains to be determined but may be of somatosensory origin in some instances.
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of cochlear implant-elicited cortical auditory evoked potentials (eCAEP) in children with cochlear nerve deficiency (CND). STUDY DESIGN: Case control series. SETTING: Tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Seven children with CND that have a cochlear implant in their affected ear. Four children without CND served as controls. INTERVENTION(S): eCAEPs were elicited by activation of individual cochlear implant electrodes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Onset responses (P1-N1-P2 complex). RESULTS: Three of 7 CNDchildren demonstrated eCAEP responses across a broad range of electrodes despite having limited or no open set speech perception abilities using their implants. Two of these children had eCAEPs that were characterized by substantial variability in latency, amplitude, and number of electrodes with identifiable responses. The remaining 4 ears with CND and poor speech perception had multiphasic responses that are inconsistent with eCAEPs. Non-CND ears with excellent speech perception abilities demonstrated robust responses on all electrodes stimulated. CONCLUSION: Abent eCAEP responses were indicative of poor open-set speech perception skills in all cases. However, eCAEP onset responses were measurable in some children with imaging evidence of CND, indicating probable cochlear nerve hypoplasia rather than aplasia. That some children with CND and poor speech perception had robust eCAEPs in some instances makes this particular measure of limited use for predicting good speech perception outcomes after cochlear implantation in these children. The origin of multiphasic responses remains to be determined but may be of somatosensory origin in some instances.
Authors: Oliver F Adunka; Patricia A Roush; Holly F B Teagle; Carolyn J Brown; Carlton J Zdanski; Valerie Jewells; Craig A Buchman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Craig A Buchman; Patricia A Roush; Holly F B Teagle; Carolyn J Brown; Carlton J Zdanski; John H Grose Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: John K Niparko; Emily A Tobey; Donna J Thal; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nae-Yuh Wang; Alexandra L Quittner; Nancy E Fink Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shuman He; Tyler C McFayden; Bahar S Shahsavarani; Holly F B Teagle; Matthew Ewend; Lillian Henderson; Craig A Buchman Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.562