Literature DB >> 25683209

Electrocochleographic findings in superior canal dehiscence syndrome.

Joo Hyun Park1, Sang Yeon Lee2, Jae-Jin Song2, Byung Yoon Choi2, Ja-Won Koo3.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the electrocochleographic findings of patients with superior canal dehiscence (SCD) syndrome and determined their diagnostic values and relationships with audiometric parameters. Thirteen symptomatic SCD patients (1 bilateral) confirmed by temporal bone computed tomography (TBCT) and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) were recruited. SCD sizes were measured on reformatted images in the plane of the superior canal (SC). Results of audiologic tests (audiometry, cVEMP, electrocochleography (ECoG)) for 14 affected and 12 contralateral unaffected ears were evaluated. Relationships between summating potential (SP) to action potential (AP) ratios, as measured by ECoG, and other audiometric parameters were evaluated. Sensitivity analysis of SP/AP ratios was performed by plotting receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SCD syndrome patients and 19 age-matched healthy controls. Mean SP/AP ratio of SCD ears was significantly higher than that of unaffected ears (0.52 versus 0.25, p < 0.001) and SPs were significantly elevated in affected ears (p = 0.011), whereas APs were similar for affected and unaffected ears. SP/AP ratio showed a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 94.0% for distinguishing SCD syndrome patients given the inclusion criteria applied (symptoms, TBCT, cVEMP threshold) at a cutoff value of 0.34 (p < 0.001). SP/AP ratio was not correlated with SCD size or cVEMP threshold in affected ears. Negative absolute values of bone conduction at low frequency tended to increase with SP/AP ratio. Five out of 13 patients underwent surgical repair experienced symptomatic improvement with normalization of SP/AP ratios. ECoG appears to be a valuable diagnostic adjunct for functional demonstration of the third window in the otic capsule with high sensitivity and specificity, and thus, can support a clinical diagnosis of SCD when used in conjunction with clinical and radiological findings.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dizziness; Electrocochleography; Superior canal dehiscence syndrome

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25683209     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  5 in total

1.  The effect of superior canal dehiscence size and location on audiometric measurements, vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and video-head impulse testing.

Authors:  Andrea Castellucci; Gianluca Piras; Valeria Del Vecchio; Francesco Maria Crocetta; Vincenzo Maiolo; Gian Gaetano Ferri; Angelo Ghidini; Cristina Brandolini
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Bilateral superior semicircular canal dehiscence: bilateral conductive hearing loss with subtle vestibular symptoms.

Authors:  Diogo Pereira; Abílio Leonardo; Delfim Duarte; Nuno Oliveira
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-03-12

Review 3.  Superior Canal Dehiscence Syndrome: Lessons from the First 20 Years.

Authors:  Bryan K Ward; John P Carey; Lloyd B Minor
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 4.003

4.  Electrocochleography summating potential seen on auditory brainstem response in a case of superior semicircular canal dehiscence.

Authors:  Bryan K Ward; Angela Wenzel; Eva K Ritzl; John P Carey
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2017-05-26

5.  Superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome: Diagnostic criteria consensus document of the committee for the classification of vestibular disorders of the Bárány Society.

Authors:  Bryan K Ward; Raymond van de Berg; Vincent van Rompaey; Alexandre Bisdorff; Timothy E Hullar; Miriam S Welgampola; John P Carey
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.354

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.