Value of intracochlear electrically evoked auditory brainstem response after cochlear implantation in patients with narrow internal auditory canal

✍ Scribed by Mee Hyun Song; Mi Ran Bae; Hee Nam Kim; Won-Sang Lee; Won Sun Yang; Jae Young Choi

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2010
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 264 KB
• Volume: 120
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0023-852X
• DOI: 10.1002/lary.21008

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis:

Cochlear implantation in patients with narrow internal auditory canal (IAC) can result in variable outcomes; however, preoperative evaluations have limitations in accurately predicting outcomes. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with narrow IAC and correlated the intracochlear electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) findings to postoperative performance to determine the prognostic significance of intracochlear EABR.

Study Design:

Retrospective case series at a tertiary hospital.

Methods:

Thirteen profoundly deaf patients with narrow IAC who received cochlear implantation from 2002 to 2008 were included in this study. Postoperative performance was evaluated after at least 12 months of follow‐up, and postoperative intracochlear EABR was measured to determine its correlation with outcome. The clinical significance of electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) was also analyzed.

Results:

Patients with narrow IAC showed postoperative auditory performances ranging from CAP 0 to 4 after cochlear implantation. Intracochlear EABR measured postoperatively demonstrated prognostic value in the prediction of long‐term outcomes, whereas ECAP measurements failed to show a significant correlation with outcome.

Conclusions:

Consistent with the advantages of intracochlear EABR over extracochlear EABR, this study demonstrates that intracochlear EABR has prognostic significance in predicting long‐term outcomes in patients with narrow IAC. Intracochlear EABR measured either intraoperatively or in the early postoperative period may play an important role in deciding whether to continue with auditory rehabilitation using a cochlear implant or to switch to an auditory brainstem implant so as not to miss the optimal timing for language development. Laryngoscope, 2010