Cochlear implantation in auditory neuropathy spectrum disorders: role of transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses and serial neural response telemetry

Objective To evaluate the utility of pre-operative transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses and post-operative neural response telemetry in auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder patients. Methods Four auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder patients who had undergone cochlear implantation and used it for more than one year were studied. All four patients underwent pre-operative transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem response testing, intra-operative and post-operative (at 3, 6 and 12 months after switch-on) neural response telemetry, and out-patient cochlear implant electrically evoked auditory brainstem response testing (at 12 months). Results Patients with better waveforms on transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem response testing showed superior performance after one year of implant use. Neural response telemetry and electrically evoked auditory brainstem response measures improved in all patients. Conclusion Inferences related to cochlear implantation outcomes can be based on the waveform of transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses. Robust transtympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses suggest better performance. Improvements in electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses and neural response telemetry over time indicate that electrical stimulation is favourable in auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder patients. These measures provide an objective way to monitor changes and progress in auditory pathways following cochlear implantation.

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

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.

Assessment of cochlear trauma and telemetry measures after cochlear implantation: A comparative study between Nucleus® CI512 and CI532 electrode arrays

The aim of this study was to compare the new Cochlear™ Nucleus® Profile with Slim Modiolar Electrode (CI532, Cochlear Ltd., Sidney, Australia) with the previous Contour Advance® (CI512) implant through postoperative residual hearing (RH) threshold shift and telemetry measurements as indirect measures of cochlear trauma. We compared 21 patients implanted with the CI532 and 20 patients implanted with the CI512, matching the 2 groups for age and for hearing loss etiology. All subjects received audiological pure tone average (PTA) calculation pre- and postimplant. Electrode impedance was measured, followed by AutoNRT® to measure and evaluate the Neural Response Telemetry (NRT®) thresholds. Telemetry recordings were made intraoperatively, one month after surgery and one month after activation. The NRT-Ratio was calculated to evaluate full scala tympani (ST) insertion. The results showed a higher number of patients with preserved measurable hearing with the CI532 (10/15; P>0.05) compared to the CI512 (5/14; P<0.05). A significant difference in post-operative low frequency PTA was observed between the two groups. There were no significant differences for telemetry measurements and NRTRatio evaluation of full ST insertion (CI512: 81%; CI532: 95%). A significantly higher number of patients who preserved measurable hearing with the CI532, and a significantly higher post-operative low frequency PTA threshold compared with the CI512 confirmed better RH preservation and lower apical cochlear damage with the CI532. There was a high number of full ST insertions for both electrode arrays. Future studies should investigate the audiological effect of implantation in patients with higher levels of RH, correlating the results with the scalar position, to assess any lesser trauma of the CI532.

Cochlear Implantation with the CI512 and CI532 Precurved Electrode Arrays: One-Year Speech Recognition and Intraoperative Thresholds of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials

Introduction: Precurved cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays were developed in an attempt to improve the auditory outcome of cochlear implantation, which varies greatly. The recent CI532 (Cochlear Corp., Sydney, Australia) may offer further advantages as its electrode array is thinner than previous precurved CI electrode arrays. The aims here were to investigate 1-year postoperative speech recognition, intraoperative electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs), and their possible relation in patients implanted with a CI532 or its predecessor CI512. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from 63 patients subjected to cochlear implantation at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, was performed. Speech recognition of the implanted ear was evaluated using phonemically balanced monosyllabic Swedish words at 65 dB SPL. ECAPs were evaluated using the intraoperative ECAP threshold across ≥8 electrodes generated by the automated neural response telemetry of the CI. Results: The median aided speech recognition score (SRS) 1 year after implantation was 52% (quartile 1 = 40%, quartile 3 = 60%, n = 63) and did not differ statistically significantly between patients with CI512 (n = 38) and CI532 (n = 25). The mean ECAP threshold was 188 CL (current level; SD = 15 CL, n = 54) intraoperatively and did not differ statistically significantly between patients with CI512 (n = 32) and CI532 (n = 22), but the threshold for each electrode varied more between patients with a CI512 (p < 0.0001). A higher mean ECAP threshold was associated with a worse SRS (Spearman’s ρ = –0.46, p = 0.0004, n = 54). The association remained among those with a CI512 (Spearman’s ρ = –0.62, p = 0.0001, n = 32) when stratified by CI electrode array. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference in speech recognition 1 year after cochlear implantation or in mean threshold of ECAP intraoperatively was found between patients with a CI512 and the more recent, slim CI532, but the ECAP thresholds varied more between those with a CI512. A statistically significant association between SRS and mean ECAP threshold was found, but stratified analysis suggests that the association may be true only for patients with a CI512.