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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |