Literature DB >> 28432874

Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.

Rachel A Scheperle1, Viral D Tejani2, Julia K Omtvedt3, Carolyn J Brown4, Paul J Abbas5, Marlan R Hansen6, Bruce J Gantz7, Jacob J Oleson8, Marie V Ozanne9.   

Abstract

This retrospective review explores delayed-onset hearing loss in 85 individuals receiving cochlear implants designed to preserve acoustic hearing at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between 2001 and 2015. Repeated measures of unaided behavioral audiometric thresholds, electrode impedance, and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) amplitude growth functions were used to characterize longitudinal changes in auditory status. Participants were grouped into two primary categories according to changes in unaided behavioral thresholds: (1) stable hearing or symmetrical hearing loss and (2) delayed loss of hearing in the implanted ear. Thirty-eight percent of this sample presented with delayed-onset hearing loss of various degrees and rates of change. Neither array type nor insertion approach (round window or cochleostomy) had a significant effect on prevalence. Electrode impedance increased abruptly for many individuals exhibiting precipitous hearing loss; the increase was often transient. The impedance increases were significantly larger than the impedance changes observed for individuals with stable or symmetrical hearing loss. Moreover, the impedance changes were associated with changes in behavioral thresholds for individuals with a precipitous drop in behavioral thresholds. These findings suggest a change in the electrode environment coincident with the change in auditory status. Changes in ECAP thresholds, growth function slopes, and suprathreshold amplitudes were not correlated with changes in behavioral thresholds, suggesting that neural responsiveness in the region excited by the implant is relatively stable. Further exploration into etiology of delayed-onset hearing loss post implantation is needed, with particular interest in mechanisms associated with changes in the intracochlear environment.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Electrically evoked compound action potential; Electrode impedance; Hearing preservation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28432874      PMCID: PMC6124313          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.04.005

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


  43 in total

1.  Long-term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds for the Ineraid cochlear implant.

Authors:  M F Dorman; L M Smith; K Dankowski; G McCandless; J L Parkin
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1992-10

2.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Foreign body or hypersensitivity granuloma of the inner ear after cochlear implantation: one possible cause of a soft failure?

Authors:  Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington; Barbara J Burgess
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Spontaneous increases in impedance following cochlear implantation: suspected causes and management.

Authors:  J Neuburger; T Lenarz; A Lesinski-Schiedat; A Büchner
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 5.  Characteristics of the metal-tissue interface of stimulation electrodes.

Authors:  A M Dymond
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Mechanisms of programmed cell death signaling in hair cells and support cells post-electrode insertion trauma.

Authors:  Adrien A Eshraghi; Dustin M Lang; Jonathan Roell; Thomas R Van De Water; Carolyn Garnham; Helio Rodrigues; Mateo Guardiola; Chhavi Gupta; Jeenu Mittal
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  Long-term results of hearing preservation cochlear implant surgery in patients with residual low frequency hearing.

Authors:  Hideaki Moteki; Shin-Ya Nishio; Maiko Miyagawa; Keita Tsukada; Satoshi Iwasaki; Shin-Ichi Usami
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users.

Authors:  M L Hughes; K R Vander Werff; C J Brown; P J Abbas; D M Kelsay; H F Teagle; M W Lowder
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Delayed loss of hearing after hearing preservation cochlear implantation: Human temporal bone pathology and implications for etiology.

Authors:  Alicia M Quesnel; Hideko Heidi Nakajima; John J Rosowski; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  United States multicenter clinical trial of the cochlear nucleus hybrid implant system.

Authors:  J Thomas Roland; Bruce J Gantz; Susan B Waltzman; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  12 in total

1.  Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.

Authors:  Jeong-Seo Kim; Viral D Tejani; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Relationship Between Intraoperative Electrocochleography and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Justin T Fleming; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 2.482

4.  Access and Polarization Electrode Impedance Changes in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Delayed Loss of Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Hyejin Yang; Jeong-Seo Kim; Helin Hernandez; Jacob J Oleson; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-10-22

5.  Residual Hair Cell Responses in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Complete Loss of Acoustic Hearing After Implantation.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Jeong-Seo Kim; Jacob J Oleson; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-04

6.  A mouse model of cochlear implantation with chronic electric stimulation.

Authors:  Alexander D Claussen; René Vielman Quevedo; Brian Mostaert; Jonathon R Kirk; Wolfram F Dueck; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Molecular mechanisms and roles of inflammatory responses on low-frequency residual hearing after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Juanjuan Gao; Haijin Yi
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2021-03-10

Review 8.  Advances in hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Osama Tarabichi; Megan Jensen; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 1.814

Review 9.  Intracochlear fibrosis and the foreign body response to cochlear implant biomaterials.

Authors:  Megan J Foggia; Rene Vielman Quevedo; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-11-13

10.  Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jeong-Seo Kim
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-26       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.