6533b86efe1ef96bd12cc826

RESEARCH PRODUCT

E-ABR in Patients with Cochlear Implant: A Comparison between Patients with Malformed Cochlea and Normal Cochlea

Franco TrabalziniArianna Di StadioGiampietro RicciVincenzo PastoreLaura DipietroAntonio Della VolpeFrancesco MartinesAntonietta De Lucia

subject

Malemedicine.medical_specialtymedicine.medical_treatmentOtoacoustic Emissions SpontaneousEABRCochlear nerve conductionDeafnessAudiologyABRPostoperative ComplicationsCochlear malformationCochlear implantEvoked Potentials Auditory Brain StemReaction Timeotorhinolaryngologic diseasesHumansMedicineIn patientCochlear implantCochlear NerveCochleamedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industrySignificant differenceInfantMagnetic resonance imagingGeneral MedicineCochlear malformationlcsh:OtorhinolaryngologyMagnetic Resonance Imaginglcsh:RF1-547CochleaSettore MED/32 - AudiologiaCochlear ImplantsSettore MED/31 - OtorinolaringoiatriaAuditory brainstem responseOtorhinolaryngologyCase-Control StudiesChild PreschoolSurgery outcomeFemaleOriginal ArticleABR; Cochlear implant; Cochlear malformation; Cochlear nerve conduction; EABR;Tomography X-Ray Computedbusiness

description

Objectives This study aims to compare the electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR) following cochlear implant (CI) surgery in pediatric subjects with cochlear malformation and a normal cochlea, in order to assess the sensitivity of EABR and to evaluate the surgery outcome. Materials and methods A total of 26 pediatric subjects who were deaf and scheduled for CI surgery were enrolled into this case control study. Group A (n=20) included subjects with a normo-conformed cochlea. Group B (n=6) included subjects with cochlear malformation. Subjects were evaluated with EABR immediately (T0) and 6 months (T1) post-CI surgery. The EABR Waves III and V average amplitude and latency were compared across time, separately for each group, and across groups, separately for each time. Results Auditory brainstem response (ABR) could only be recorded in Group A. We were able to record EABR from all subjects at T0 and T1, and waves III and V were present in all the recorded signals. There were no statistically significant differences between T0 and T1 in EABR Waves III and V in terms of average amplitude and latency in neither group. When comparing Groups A and B, the only statistically significant difference was the average amplitude of wave V, both at T0 and T1. Conclusion EABR is a valid tool to measure the auditory nerve integrity after CI surgery in patients with a normal and malformed cochlea, as shown by its ability to measure waves III and V when ABR is absent. The EABR testing should be performed before and after CI surgery, and EABR should be used as a measure of outcome, especially in patients with a malformed cochlea.

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2019-01-01
10.5152/iao.2019.6251http://hdl.handle.net/11391/1457166