| Literature DB >> 26485661 |
Lexing Huang1, Wenbin Zheng1, Chunxiao Wu1, Xiaoqin Wei2, Xianguang Wu2, Yanting Wang1, Hongyi Zheng1.
Abstract
Although conventional structural MRI provides vital information in the evaluation of congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), it is relatively insensitive to white matter microstructure. Our objective was to evaluate possible changes in microstructure of the auditory pathway in children with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and the possible distinction between good and poor outcome of cochlear implantation (CI) patients by using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Twenty-four patients with congenital SNHL and 20 healthy controls underwent conventional MRI and DTI examination using a 1.5T MR scanner. The DTI metrics of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) of six regions of interest (ROIs) positioned along the auditory pathway-the trapezoid body, superior olivary nucleus, inferior colliculus, medial geniculate body, auditory radiation and white matter of Heschl's gyrus-was measured in all subjects. Among the 24 patients, 8 patients with a categorie of auditory performance (CAP) score over 6 were classified into the good outcome group, and 16 patients with a CAP score below 6 were classified into the poor outcome group. A significant decrease was observed in FA values while MD values remained unchanged at the six ROIs of SNHL patients compared with healthy controls. Compared to good outcome subjects, poor outcome subjects displayed decreased FA values at all of the ROIs. No changes were observed in MD values. Correlation analyses only revealed strong correlations between FA values and CAP scores, and strong correlations between CAP scores and age at implant were also found. No correlations of FA values with age at implant were observed. Our results show that preoperative DTI can be used to evaluate microstructural alterations in the auditory pathway that are not detectable by conventional MR imaging, and may play an important role in evaluating the outcome of CI. Early cochlear implantation might be more effectively to restore hearing in SNHL patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26485661 PMCID: PMC4618518 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinical and audiogram data of patients.
| Good outcome (n = 8) | Poor outcome (n = 16) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 4.6 ± 1.0 | 4.7 ± 1.0 | >0.05 |
| CI (side) | Right (7),left (1) | Right (9),left (7) | - |
| Age at time of CI | 4.7± 1.0 | 5.2 ±1.0 | >0.05 |
| ABR (pre CI) | No response | No response | - |
| CAP score | 6.1 ± 0.35 | 4.5 ± 0.52 | <0.05 |
Values are presented as mean±SD.
*Statistically significant difference.
CI, cochlear implantation; ABR, auditory brainstem response; CAP, categories of auditory performance.
Fig 1Representative DT imaging of the ROIs.
(a) the trapezoid body, (b) superior olivary nucleus, (c) inferior colliculus, (d) medial geniculate body, (e) the auditory radiation, (f) the white matter of Heschl's gyrus, (square box) the selected ROI.
Summary of FA values at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG in the SNHL and control groups.
| SNHL (n = 24) | Control (n = 20) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 0.011 |
| SON | 0.36 ± 0.04 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.007 |
| IC | 0.44 ± 0.04 | 0.46 ± 0.02 | 0.007 |
| MGB | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.008 |
| AR | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.03 | 0.006 |
| WHG | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.02 | 0.002 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD
*Statistically significant difference.
FA values measured at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the SNHL group were compared with the control group.
Summary of MD values at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG in the SNHL and control groups.
| SNHL (n = 24) | Control (n = 20) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB | 0.93 ± 0.10 | 0.91 ± 0.10 | 0.464 |
| SON | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 0.88 ± 0.11 | 0.578 |
| IC | 0.81 ± 0.10 | 0.78 ± 0.10 | 0.224 |
| MGB | 0.72 ± 0.13 | 0.72 ± 0.11 | 0.976 |
| AR | 0.80 ± 0.09 | 0.80 ± 0.10 | 0.771 |
| WHG | 0.62 ± 0.10 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.617 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD; MD values measured at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the SNHL group were compared with the control group.
Summary of FA values at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the good/ poor outcome group of SNHL patients.
| Good outcome (n = 8) | Poor outcome (n = 16) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB | 0.39 ± 0.04 | 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.003 |
| SON | 0.40 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.002 |
| IC | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.03 | 0.002 |
| MGB | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 0.001 |
| AR | 0.35 ± 0.05 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.002 |
| WHG | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.004 |
Values are presented as mean±SD
*Statistically significant difference.
FA values measured at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the good outcome group of SNHL patients were compared with the poor group.
Summary of MD values at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the good/ poor outcome group of SNHL patients.
| Good outcome (n = 8) | Poor outcome (n = 16) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB | 0.92 ± 0.10 | 0.93 ± 0.10 | 0.709 |
| SON | 0.91 ± 0.08 | 0.89 ± 0.13 | 0.418 |
| IC | 0.80 ± 0.10 | 0.82 ± 0.10 | 0.622 |
| MGB | 0.71 ± 0.09 | 0.73 ± 0.15 | 0.659 |
| AR | 0.76 ± 0.10 | 0.82 ± 0.08 | 0.154 |
| WHG | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 0.64 ± 0.11 | 0.073 |
Values are presented as mean±SD; MD values measured at the TB, SON, IC, MGB, AR and WHG of the good outcome group of SNHL patients were compared with the poor group.