Interaural Difference of Wave V Predicting Postoperative Hearing in Gardner–Robertson Class II Acoustic Neuroma Patients

Noritaka Aihara; Shingo Murakami; Keiji Takemura; Kazuo Yamada

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1348024

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Table of Contents

J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2013; 74(05): 274-278
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348024

Original Article

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Interaural Difference of Wave V Predicting Postoperative Hearing in Gardner–Robertson Class II Acoustic Neuroma Patients

Authors

Noritaka Aihara

¹Department of Neurosurgery, Nagoya City University Medical School, Nagoya, Japan
Shingo Murakami

²Department of Otolaryngology, Nagoya City University Medical School, Nagoya, Japan
Keiji Takemura

²Department of Otolaryngology, Nagoya City University Medical School, Nagoya, Japan
Kazuo Yamada

¹Department of Neurosurgery, Nagoya City University Medical School, Nagoya, Japan

Abstract

Patients with acoustic neuroma classified in Gardner and Robertson (GR) Class II should be considered to have useful hearing, and patients classified in Class III should be considered to have not-useful hearing. Therefore, it is important for acoustic neuroma surgery to distinguish between postoperative GR Class II and Class III patients by brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs). We evaluate which BAEP parameter is the best for predicting postoperative GR Class II or III in 36 preoperative GR Class II patients with unilateral acoustic neuroma. Delay in wave V latency, reduction ratio in wave V amplitude, and interaural difference of wave V (IT5) are evaluated by a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve in this study. IT5 is the best distinguishing parameter between postoperative Class II and Class III. IT5 below 1.12 millisecond (msec) should be a good marker to preserve postoperative useful hearing. Thus, comparing the latency of wave V on both sides is important, and surgeons would be able to make more informed decisions during surgery by checking IT5 on BAEPs.

Keywords

acoustic neuroma - brainstem auditory evoked potentials - useful hearing - interaural difference of wave V

Full Text

References

References
1 Harper CM, Harner SG, Slavit DH , et al. Effect of BAEP monitoring on hearing preservation during acoustic neuroma resection. Neurology 1992; 42 (8) 1551-1553
2 Matthies C, Samii M. Management of vestibular schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): the value of neurophysiology for evaluation and prediction of auditory function in 420 cases. Neurosurgery 1997; 40 (5) 919-929 , discussion 929–930
3 Neu M, Strauss C, Romstöck J, Bischoff B, Fahlbusch R. The prognostic value of intraoperative BAEP patterns in acoustic neurinoma surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 110 (11) 1935-1941
4 Roberson Jr JB, Jackson LE, McAuley JR. Acoustic neuroma surgery: absent auditory brainstem response does not contraindicate attempted hearing preservation. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (6) 904-910
5 Bischoff B, Romstöck J, Fahlbusch R, Buchfelder M, Strauss C. Intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential pattern and perioperative vasoactive treatment for hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma surgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79 (2) 170-175
6 Gardner G, Robertson JH. Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988; 97 (1) 55-66
7 Aihara N, Murakami S, Watanabe N , et al. Cochlear nerve action potential monitoring with the microdissector in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Skull Base 2009; 19 (5) 325-332
8 Tokimura H, Asakura T, Tokimura Y , et al. [Intraoperative ABR monitoring during cerebello-pontine angle surgery]. No Shinkei Geka 1990; 18 (11) 1023-1027 [Japanese]
9 Polo G, Fischer C, Sindou MP, Marneffe V. Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring during microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential changes and warning values to prevent hearing loss—prospective study in a consecutive series of 84 patients. Neurosurgery 2004; 54 (1) 97-104 , discussion 104–106
10 Phillips DJ, Kobylarz EJ, De Peralta ET, Stieg PE, Selesnick SH. Predictive factors of hearing preservation after surgical resection of small vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (9) 1463-1468
11 James ML, Husain AM. Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring: when is change in wave V significant?. Neurology 2005; 65 (10) 1551-1555
12 Sekiya T, Shimamura N, Hatayama T, Suzuki S. [Establishment of the criteria to evaluate intraoperative changes of brainstem auditory evoked potentials during microvascular decompression and acoustic neurinoma excision]. No Shinkei Geka 1996; 24 (5) 431-436 [Japanese]
13 Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240 (4857) 1285-1293
14 Selters WA, Brackmann DE. Acoustic tumor detection with brain stem electric response audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1977; 103 (4) 181-187
15 Sindou MP. Microvascular decompression for primary hemifacial spasm. Importance of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005; 147 (10) 1019-1026 , discussion 1026