Changes in Intraoperative and Postoperative Neural Response Telemetry in Cochlear Implant Users | ||
| Sohag Medical Journal | ||
| Article 31, Volume 21, Issue 3, October 2017, Pages 263-271 PDF (78.96 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/smj.2017.39758 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Shahenda Moussa; Mostafa Aly; Mohamed Abdelrahman | ||
| Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sohag Faculty of medicine, Sohag University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Introduction: The cochlear implant directly stimulates the auditory nerve in deaf patients. Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) is used to record the response of the auditory nerve through thefeedback of the electrical signal. NRT does not need behavioral responses from very young children for thresholds and comfort levels. The status of the cochlear nerve activation with NRT was reviewed through intraoperative and postoperative neural responses. Aim of the work: To detect any changes in intraoperative and postoperative neural response telemetry in cochlear implant users. Patients and Methods:Thirty patients were implanted with a MED-EL device, Sonata II (Med-El, Innsbruck, Austria) at Sohag University hospital. Electrodes 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were monitored intraoperatively. One month after surgery, the neural responses were investigated using the same electrodes as during the intraoperative procedures. The corresponding electrodes werethen checked again after another 3 months.Phase duration 30µs, begin by amplitude 200cu increasing in steps each 100cu till get response or reaching maximum level 1200cu (intraoperative) or reached the uncomfortable level of the child (postoperative). Threshold of the neuronal response is calculated using linear equation function. Results:There is significant improvement in thresholdsof NRTresponse postoperatively which was high intraoperatively. NRT threshold increase in postoperative follow up in comparison with first postoperative measurement but this increase is not statistically significant. Conclusion: Absence of NRT response in some electrodes intraoperative does not mean that electrode must be out of function or outside the cochlea. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Pre-op.vs Post-op; CI; NRT | ||
|
Supplementary Files
|
||
| References | ||
|
-Brown C, Abbas P, Etlert C, O'Brient S, Oleson J. Effects of long-term use of a cochlear implant on the electrically evoked compound action potential. J Am AcadAudiol. 2010 Jan;21(1):5-15.
2-Bower C, Martin P. Infant hearing screening. CurrOpinOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 16(6):562-568.
3-Chen J,Chuang A,Sprinzl G. impedance and electerically evokedcompound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation .PLos ONE 2013; (8): 19-29.
4-Clark G. Cochlear implants: fundamentals and applications New York: Springer-Verlag; 2003; 5:12:14.
5-Cosetti M, Shapiro W, Green J. Intraoperative neural response telemetry as a predictor of performance. OtolNeurotol 2010; 31:1095-1099.
6-Goehring J, Hughes M, Baudhuin J. How well do cochlear implant intraoperative impedance measures predict postoperative electrode function? Otol. Neurotol. 2013; 34: 239-244.
7-Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F. Spread of excitation measurement s for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational x-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. OtolNeurotol 2009; 30:27-33.
8-Juiz J.,Rueda J.&Merchan J. Reversible damage to the nerve fibers in the organ of corti after surgical opening of the cochlea in the rat .ActaOtolarngeal.1988;106: 29-33.
9- Muhamimeed H., Fatma A, Osama H, Eba S., international journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology 2010; 74: 356-360.
10- Su G, Colesa D. &Pfingst B. Effects of deafeningand cochlear implantation procedures on post implantation psychophysical electrical detection thresholds.Hear.Res.2008; 241, 65-72.
11- Telmesani L, Said N. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int J PediatrOtorhinolaryngol. 2016 Mar; 82: 28-33.
12-Tsuprun V, Santi P. Proteoglycan arrays in the cochlear basement membrane. Hear Res 2001;157: 65–76.
13-Vargas J, Sainz M, Roldan C, Alvarez I, de la Torre A. Long-term evolution of theelectrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients. ClinExpOtorhinolaryngol 2012; 5:194-200.
14-Wolf-Magele A,Schnabl J,Edlinger S,Pok S.M,Schoerg P,Sprinzl G.M.,postoperative changes in telemetry measurments after cochlear implantatgion and its impact on early activation. Clin.Otolaryngol.2015;40:527-534.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 235 PDF Download: 282 |
||
