Literature DB >> 31274070

Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Measurements in Traditional and Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation.

Ashley M Nassiri1, Robert J Yawn1, René H Gifford1, David S Haynes1, Jillian B Roberts1, Max S Gilbane1, Jack Murfee1, Marc L Bennett1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In current practice, the status of residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in hearing preservation cochlear implantation (CI) is unknown until activation two to three weeks postoperatively. The intraoperatively measured electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), a synchronous response from electrically stimulated auditory nerve fibers, is one of the first markers of auditory nerve function after cochlear implant surgery and such may provide information regarding the status of residual low-frequency acoustic hearing.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between intraoperative ECAP at the time of CI and presence of preoperative and postoperative low-frequency acoustic hearing. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A retrospective case review. STUDY SAMPLE: Two hundred seventeen adult ears receiving CI (42 Advanced Bionics, 82 Cochlear, and 93 MED-EL implants).
INTERVENTIONS: Intraoperative ECAP and CI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: ECAP measurements were obtained intraoperatively, whereas residual hearing data were obtained from postoperative CI activation audiogram. A linear mixed model test revealed no interaction effects for the following variables: manufacturer, electrode location (basal, middle, and apical), preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA), and postoperative LFPTA. The postoperative residual low-frequency hearing status was defined as preservation of unaided air conduction thresholds ≤90 dB at 250 Hz. Electrode location and hearing preservation data were analyzed individually for both the ECAP threshold and ECAP maximum amplitude using multiple t-tests, without assuming a consistent standard deviation between the groups, and with alpha correction.
RESULTS: The maximum amplitude, in microvolts, was significantly higher throughout apical and middle regions of the cochlea in patients who had preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing as compared with those who did not have preserved hearing (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0088, respectively). ECAP threshold, in microamperes, was significantly lower throughout the apical region of the cochlea in patients with preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing as compared with those without preserved hearing (p = 0.0099). Basal electrode maximum amplitudes and middle and basal electrode thresholds were not significantly correlated with postoperative low-frequency hearing.
CONCLUSIONS: Apical and middle electrode maximum amplitudes and apical electrode thresholds detected through intraoperative ECAP measurements are significantly correlated with preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing. This association may represent a potential immediate feedback mechanism for postoperative outcomes that can be applied to all CIs. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31274070      PMCID: PMC6999088          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  41 in total

1.  Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children.

Authors:  M L Hughes; C J Brown; P J Abbas; A A Wolaver; J P Gervais
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Impact of low-frequency hearing.

Authors:  A Büchner; M Schüssler; R D Battmer; T Stöver; A Lesinski-Schiedat; T Lenarz
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-05

4.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; E Javel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Matthew L Carlson; Colin L W Driscoll; René H Gifford; Geoffrey J Service; Nicole M Tombers; Becky J Hughes-Borst; Brian A Neff; Charles W Beatty
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Kelly Jahn; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Brendan P O'Connell; David O Francis; Rene H Gifford; Jacob B Hunter; Jourdan T Holder; Marc L Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; David S Haynes
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Intracochlear Recordings of Acoustically and Electrically Evoked Potentials in Nucleus Hybrid L24 Cochlear Implant Users and Their Relationship to Speech Perception.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Viral D Tejani; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Enhanced survival of spiral ganglion cells after cessation of treatment with brain-derived neurotrophic factor in deafened guinea pigs.

Authors:  Martijn J H Agterberg; Huib Versnel; Lotte M van Dijk; John C M J de Groot; Sjaak F L Klis
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-04-14

Review 10.  The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Jacob B Hunter; George B Wanna
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-11-29
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Cochlear protein biomarkers as potential sites for targeted inner ear drug delivery.

Authors:  James G Naples; Lauren E Miller; Andrew Ramsey; Daqing Li
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.617

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.