Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(04): e444-e449
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702974
Original Research

Neural Recovery Function of the Auditory Nerve in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Comparison between Prelingual and Postlingual Patients

Bettina Carvalho 
1   Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
Gislaine Richter Minhoto Wiemes 
1   Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
Luiz Patrial Netto 
1   Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
,
Rogerio Hamerschmidt 
1   Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Cochlear implants (CIs) enable objective measures of the neural function in implanted patients through the measurements of the neural response telemetry (NRT) and of the Auditory nerve Recovery Function (REC). These measurements help in programming the speech processor and understanding the auditory system.

Objective To compare the NRT and the REC in prelingual and postlingual implanted patients.

Methods An observational, descriptive and prospective study was carried out. The NRT and the REC (through the T0, A, and tau parameters) were evaluated in individuals submitted to CI surgery, who were divided into two groups: prelingual and postlingual patients.

Results In total, 46 patients were evaluated. Data analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the NRT measurements and the T0, A, and Tau of the REC in the comparison between the two groups, except for the NRT in the basal cochlear region.

Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference in the REC in pre- and postlingual patients.

Keywords

cochlear implants - prelingual hearing loss - postlingual hearing loss - neural response telemetry


Publication History

Received: 29 April 2019

Accepted: 26 December 2019

Article published online:
24 April 2020

© .

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Oliveira P, Castro F, Ribeiro A. Surdez infantil. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2002; 68: 417-423
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sharma A, Tobey E, Dorman M. et al. Central auditory maturation and babbling development in infants with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (05) 511-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Guedes MC, Weber R, Goffi-Gomez MVS, Brito Neto RV, Peralta CGO, Bento RF. Efeitos do potencial de ação neural sobre a percepção de fala em usuários de implante coclear. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2007; 73: 660-667
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Simmons FB, Lusted HS, Meyers T, Shelton C. Electrically induced auditory brainstem response as a clinical tool in estimating nerve survival. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1984; 112: 97-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cohen LT. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 5. refractory recovery and facilitation. Hear Res 2009; 248 (1-2): 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Eddington DK, Dobelle WH, Brackmann DE, Mladejovsky MG, Parkin JL. Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1978; 87 (6 Pt 2): 1-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Busby PA, Roberts SA, Tong YC, Clark GM. Results of speech perception and speech production training for three prelingually deaf patients using a multiple-electrode cochlear implant. Br J Audiol 1991; 25 (05) 291-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Busby PA, Tong YC, Clark GM. Electrode position, repetition rate, and speech perception by early- and late-deafened cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93 (02) 1058-1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Manrique M, Cervera-Paz FJ, Huarte A, Perez N, Molina M, García-Tapia R. Cerebral auditory plasticity and cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1999; 49 (Suppl. 01) S193-S197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Harrison RV, Gordon KA, Mount RJ. Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation. Dev Psychobiol 2005; 46 (03) 252-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ching TYC, Dillon H, Button L. et al. Age at Intervention for Permanent Hearing Loss and 5-Year Language Outcomes. Pediatrics 2017; 140 (03) e20164274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guedes MC, Brito Neto RV, Goffi-Gomez MVS. et al. Telemetria de resposta neural intra-operatoria em usuários de implante coclear Nucleus 24. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2005; 71: 660-667
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK. et al. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 45-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Botros A, Psarros C. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 380-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Battmer RD, Dillier N, Lai WK. et al. Evaluation of the neural response telemetry (NRT) capabilities of the nucleus research platform 8: initial results from the NRT trial. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (Suppl. 01) S10-S15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Morsnowski A, Charasse B, Collet L, Killian M, Müller-Deile J. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (06) 389-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lai WK. An NRT cookbook. Basel, Switzerland: Cochlear AG; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Müller-Deile J, Mornowski A, Charasse B, Thai-Van H, Killian M. Correlation of auditory nerve refractoriness and the offset between auditory nerve response thresholds and psychophysical thresholds in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients. In: Sheperd RK, Svirsky MA. (Eds.) Abstracts of the 2003 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses. Toulouse: 2003: 178
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. An evoked potential study of the developmental time course of the auditory nerve and brainstem in children using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (01) 7-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hinderink JB. Men's LHM, Brokx JPL, Can Den Broek P. Performance of prelingually and postlingually deaf patients using single-channel or multichannel cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1995; 105: 618-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tong YC, Busby PA, Clark GM. Perceptual studies on cochlear implant patients with early onset of profound hearing impairment prior to normal development of auditory, speech, and language skills. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84 (03) 951-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kraaijenga VJC, Smit AL, Stegeman I, Smilde JJM, van Zanten GA, Grolman W. Factors that influence outcomes in cochlear implantation in adults, based on patient-related characteristics - a retrospective study. Clin Otolaryngol 2016; 41 (05) 585-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Miller CA, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Chi SL. The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hear Res 2008; 242 (1-2): 184-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Naito Y, Hirano S, Honjo I. et al. Sound-induced activation of auditory cortices in cochlear implant users with post- and prelingual deafness demonstrated by positron emission tomography. Acta Otolaryngol 1997; 117 (04) 490-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Okazawa H, Naito Y, Yonekura Y. et al. Cochlear implant efficiency in pre- and postlingually deaf subjects. A study with H2(15)O and PET. Brain 1996; 119 (Pt 4): 1297-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Carvalho B, Hamerschmidt R, Wiemes G. Intraoperative Neural Response Telemetry and Neural Recovery Function: a Comparative Study between Adults and Children. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 19 (01) 10-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kutscher K, Goffi-Gomez MVS, Befi-Lopes DM, Tsuji RK, Bento RF. Implante coclear: correlação da recuperação neural, privação auditiva e etiologia. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient. 2010; 22: 473-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Miller CA, Hu N, Zhang F, Robinson BK, Abbas PJ. Changes across time in the temporal responses of auditory nerve fibers stimulated by electric pulse trains. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2008; 9 (01) 122-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Alvarez I, de la Torre A, Sainz M, Roldán C, Schoesser H, Spitzer P. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 134-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar