Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Available online at
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
Original article
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Introduction: Electric compound action potentials (ECAPs) provide information about the nerve’s and
Cochlear device’s function in and after cochlear implantation. In general, lower ECAP values are expected to gen-
Implant erate better results. Aim was an analysis of ECAPs in the course of time as a function of the patient’s age
ECAP
and electrode design.
NRT
Patients and methods: Between 2008 and 2013, 168 patients of eight defined age groups were included
CI
Electrode into the investigation. NRTs were measured intraoperatively, after 6 and after 12 months.
Array Results: The intraoperative mean value of ECAP was 174.14 CL (current level) and decreased after
Perimodiolar 6 months to 156.38 CL. Highest ECAPs were achieved intraoperatively in the clusters “younger than
Hearing loss 18 months” (181.04 CL) and “older than 80 years” (190.45 CL). CI 422 showed apparently higher ECAP
Threshold thresholds (182.69) during surgery than CI 24 RE (171.47) and CI 512 (170.64).
Conclusion: ECAPs are a well-established method to get information about the CI’s and nerve’s function
during and after surgery. After initial higher values NRTs decrease after 6 months and remain stable
in the following controls. Very young and older patients tend to have higher thresholds than middle-
aged groups. Perimodiolar electrodes are significantly attached to lower values because there is a closer
nerve–electrode interaction.
© 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2016.04.015
1879-7296/© 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
S2 F. Christov et al. / European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 133S (2016) S1–S3
Table 1
Mean tNRTs of different electrode arrays at three specific points of time.
The influence of different insertion methods and electrode loca- Disclosure of interest
tion will be subject of upcoming studies. Practical experience shows
a difference between round-window insertion and cochleostomy- The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
approach. Furthermore tNRTs generated in the basal parts of the
electrode array lead to different values compared to the medial References
or apical section. Reasons for this could be seen in the variable
electrode–nerve interaction or distinct features of hair cells and [1] Potts LG, Skinner MW, Gotter BD, Strube MJ, Brenner CA. Relation between neural
response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12
the hearing nerve. adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2007;28(4):495–511.
Another upcoming research subject is the dependency of tNRT [2] Chen JK, Chuang AY, Sprinzl GM, Tung TH, Li LP. Impedance and elec-
thresholds on postoperative hearing outcome. The aim of this item trically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours
after cochlear implantation. PLoS One 2013;8(8):e71929, http://dx.doi.org/
is to answer the question whether the objective measured tNRT
10.1371/journal.pone.0071929 [eCollection].
results can predict postoperative speech perception. Consequently,
[3] Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Etlert CP, O’Brient S, Oleson JJ. Effects of long-term use of
the presented results would suggest that the hearing outcome pro- a cochlear implant on the electrically evoked compound action potential. J Am
vided by perimodiolar electrodes might be better than with thinner Acad Audiol 2010;21(1):5–15.
[4] Carvalho B, Hamerschmidt R, Wiemes G. Intraoperative neural response
straight arrays (in case it directly depends on a low ECAP level).
telemetry and neural recovery function: a comparative study between adults
Considering the fact that the thinner electrode (CI 422) so far has and children. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;19(1):10–5, http://dx.doi.org/
been supposed to grant not only a better hearing preservation but 10.1055/s-0034-1372509 [Epub 2014 Apr 2].
also a better hearing outcome it is a challenging task to answer this [5] Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, Shapiro W, Knight M, Stecker M, et al.
question by further investigations. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-
modiolar distance. Ear Hear 2002;23(Suppl. 1):28S–40S.
[6] Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, et al. A longitudinal study of electrode
5. Conclusion impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral
measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001;22(6):471–86.
[7] Telmesani LM, Said NM. Effect of cochlear implant electrode array design on
ECAPs are a well-established method to get information about auditory nerve and behavioral response in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryn-
the cochlear implants’ and nerve’s function during and after gol 2015;79(5):660–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.02.008 [Epub
surgery. After initial higher values, NRTs decrease after 6 months 2015 Feb 14].
and remain stable in the following controls. Very young and older [8] Hughes ML, Abbas PJ. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch
ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear
patients tend to have higher thresholds than middle-aged groups. implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119(3):1538–47.
Perimodiolar electrodes are attached significantly to lower values [9] Polak M, Hodges A, Balkany T. ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different
due to a closer nerve–electrode interaction. nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2005;26(4):639–45.