Cargando…

A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation

There are two techniques for cochlear implant (CI) electrode placement: cochleostomy and the round window (RW) approach. Objective: This study aims to compare neural response telemetry (NRT) results immediately after surgery to check for possible differences on auditory nerve stimulation between the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamerschmidt, Rogério, Schuch, Luiz Henrique, Rezende, Rodrigo Kopp, Wiemes, Gislaine Richter Minhoto, de Oliveira, Adriana Kosma Pires, Mocellin, Marcos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9446169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000400014
_version_ 1784783589479546880
author Hamerschmidt, Rogério
Schuch, Luiz Henrique
Rezende, Rodrigo Kopp
Wiemes, Gislaine Richter Minhoto
de Oliveira, Adriana Kosma Pires
Mocellin, Marcos
author_facet Hamerschmidt, Rogério
Schuch, Luiz Henrique
Rezende, Rodrigo Kopp
Wiemes, Gislaine Richter Minhoto
de Oliveira, Adriana Kosma Pires
Mocellin, Marcos
author_sort Hamerschmidt, Rogério
collection PubMed
description There are two techniques for cochlear implant (CI) electrode placement: cochleostomy and the round window (RW) approach. Objective: This study aims to compare neural response telemetry (NRT) results immediately after surgery to check for possible differences on auditory nerve stimulation between these two techniques. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study. Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Six patients underwent surgery by cochleostomy and 17 had it through the RW approach. Results: Mean charge units (MCU) for high frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 190.4 (±29.2) while cochleostomy patients averaged 187.8 (±32.7); p = 0.71. MCU for mid frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 192.5 (±22) while cochleostomy patients averaged 178.5 (±18.5); p = 0.23. MCU for low frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 183.3 (±25) while cochleostomy patients averaged 163.8 (±19.3); p = 0.19. Conclusion: This study showed no differences in the action potential of the distal portion of the auditory nerve in patients with multichannel cochlear implants submitted to surgery by cochleostomy or through the RW approach, using the implant itself to generate stimuli and record responses. Both techniques equally stimulate the cochlear nerve. Therefore, the choice of approach can be made based on the surgeon's own preference and experience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9446169
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94461692022-09-09 A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation Hamerschmidt, Rogério Schuch, Luiz Henrique Rezende, Rodrigo Kopp Wiemes, Gislaine Richter Minhoto de Oliveira, Adriana Kosma Pires Mocellin, Marcos Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Original Article There are two techniques for cochlear implant (CI) electrode placement: cochleostomy and the round window (RW) approach. Objective: This study aims to compare neural response telemetry (NRT) results immediately after surgery to check for possible differences on auditory nerve stimulation between these two techniques. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study. Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Six patients underwent surgery by cochleostomy and 17 had it through the RW approach. Results: Mean charge units (MCU) for high frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 190.4 (±29.2) while cochleostomy patients averaged 187.8 (±32.7); p = 0.71. MCU for mid frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 192.5 (±22) while cochleostomy patients averaged 178.5 (±18.5); p = 0.23. MCU for low frequency sounds: patients submitted to the RW approach had a mean value of 183.3 (±25) while cochleostomy patients averaged 163.8 (±19.3); p = 0.19. Conclusion: This study showed no differences in the action potential of the distal portion of the auditory nerve in patients with multichannel cochlear implants submitted to surgery by cochleostomy or through the RW approach, using the implant itself to generate stimuli and record responses. Both techniques equally stimulate the cochlear nerve. Therefore, the choice of approach can be made based on the surgeon's own preference and experience. Elsevier 2015-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9446169/ /pubmed/22936140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000400014 Text en . https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Hamerschmidt, Rogério
Schuch, Luiz Henrique
Rezende, Rodrigo Kopp
Wiemes, Gislaine Richter Minhoto
de Oliveira, Adriana Kosma Pires
Mocellin, Marcos
A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title_full A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title_fullStr A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title_short A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
title_sort comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9446169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000400014
work_keys_str_mv AT hamerschmidtrogerio acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT schuchluizhenrique acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT rezenderodrigokopp acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT wiemesgislainerichterminhoto acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT deoliveiraadrianakosmapires acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT mocellinmarcos acomparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT hamerschmidtrogerio comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT schuchluizhenrique comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT rezenderodrigokopp comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT wiemesgislainerichterminhoto comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT deoliveiraadrianakosmapires comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation
AT mocellinmarcos comparisonbetweenneuralresponsetelemetryviacochleostomyortheroundwindowapproachincochlearimplantation