nach oben

HNO

Erschienen in:

19.07.2016 | Cochlea Implantat | Leitthema

Intra- und postoperative elektrophysiologische Diagnostik

verfasst von: Dr.-Ing. T. Wesarg, S. Arndt, A. Aschendorff, R. Laszig, R. Beck, L. Jung, S. Zirn

Erschienen in: HNO | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen der Cochleaimplantat (CI)-Versorgung werden sowohl intraoperativ als auch postoperativ verschiedene elektrische und elektrophysiologische Diagnostikverfahren eingesetzt, bei denen elektrische Messgrößen vom CI erfasst und elektrophysiologische Messungen bei CI-Patienten durchgeführt werden. Zu den elektrophysiologischen Diagnostikverfahren zählen die Messung der elektrisch evozierten Summenaktionspotenziale des Hörnervs, die Registrierung der elektrisch evozierten auditorischen Hirnstammpotenziale und die Erfassung der elektrisch evozierten auditorischen kortikalen Potenziale. Diese Potenziale widerspiegeln die Erregung des Hörnervs und die Reizverarbeitung in verschiedenen Stationen der aufsteigenden Hörbahn bei intracochleärer elektrischer Stimulation mittels eines CI. Bei den aktuellen CI sind die Beurteilung der Elektrodenlage sowie die Prüfung der Ankopplung des Implantats an den Hörnerv wichtige Anwendungsgebiete der elektrophysiologischen Diagnostikverfahren. Ein weiteres bedeutendes Einsatzfeld stellt die Prüfung der Reizverarbeitung in der Hörbahn dar. Das Hauptanwendungsgebiet dieser Verfahren bildet jedoch die Unterstützung der Anpassung der CI-Sprachprozessoren bei Säuglingen und Kleinkindern auf der Basis elektrophysiologischer Schwellen.

Akin I, Mutlu M, Kuran G, Dincer H, Arnold L, Boyle P (2008) One-year results of the banded neural response imaging study. Otol Neurotol 29(5):635–638CrossRefPubMed

Akin I, Kuran G, Saka C, Vural M (2006) Preliminary results on correlation between neural response imaging and ‚most comfortable levels‘ in cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 120(4):261–265CrossRefPubMed

Alvarez I, Torre A de la, Sainz M, Roldán C, Schoesser H, Spitzer P (2010) Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C‑levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear 31(1):134–145CrossRefPubMed

Arndt S, Beck R, Schild C et al (2010) Management of cochlear implantation in patients with malformations. Clin Otolaryngol 35(3):220–227CrossRefPubMed

Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Maier W et al (2009) Kochleaimplantat bei Innenohrfehlbildungen. HNO 57(6):533–541CrossRefPubMed

Basta D, Todt I, Goepel F, Ernst A (2008) Loss of saccular function after cochlear implantation: the diagnostic impact of intracochlear electrically elicited VEMPs. Audiol Neurotol 13(3):187–192CrossRef

Battmer RD, Laszig R, Lehnhardt E (1990) Electrically elicited stapedius reflex in cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 11(5):370–374CrossRefPubMed

Borne B van den, Snik AF, Mens LH et al (1996) Stapedius reflex measurements during surgery for cochlear implantation in children. Am J Otol 17(4):554–558PubMed

Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Etlert CP, O’Brient S, Oleson JJ (2010) Effects of long-term use of a cochlear implant on the electrically evoked compound action potential. J Am Acad Audiol 21(1):5–15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Brown CJ (2003) Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11(5):383–387CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B et al (2000) The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 21(2):151–163CrossRefPubMed

12.

Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ (1998) Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 19(3):320–327PubMed

13.

Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Fryauf-Bertschy H, Kelsay D, Gantz BJ (1994) Intraoperative and postoperative electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses in Nucleus cochlear implant users: implications for the fitting process. Ear Hear 15(2):168–176CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cafarelli Dees D, Dillier N, Lai WK et al (2005) Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol Neurootol 10(2):105–116CrossRef

15.

Caner G, Olgun L, Gultekin G, Balaban M (2007) Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold. Otol Neurotol 28(5):637–640CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cinar BC, Atas A, Sennaroglu G, Sennaroglu L (2011) Evaluation of objective test techniques in cochlear implant users with inner ear malformations. Otol Neurotol 32(7):1065–1074CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, Cowan RS (2003) Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res 179(1-2):72–87CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cullington H (2000) Preliminary neural response telemetry results. Br J Audiol 34(3):131–140CrossRefPubMed

19.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Audiologie (2015) Audiologische Leistungen nach der CI-Indikation. Z Audiol 54(1):36–37

20.

Dijk B van, Botros AM, Battmer RD et al (2007) Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 28(4):558–570CrossRefPubMed

21.

Di Nardo W, Ippolito S, Quaranta N, Cadoni G, Galli J (2003) Correlation between NRT measurement and behavioural levels in patients with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 23(5):352–355PubMed

22.

Eisen MD, Franck KH (2004) Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects. Ear Hear 25(6):528–538CrossRefPubMed

23.

Franck KH, Norton SJ (2001) Estimation of psychophyical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation’s CI24M device. Ear Hear 22(4):289–299CrossRefPubMed

24.

Gärtner L, Lenarz T, Joseph G, Büchner A (2010) Clinical use of a system for the automated recording and analysis of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in cochlear implant patients. Acta Otolaryngol 130(6):724–732CrossRefPubMed

25.

Gibson WP, Sanli H (2007) Auditory neuropathy: an update. Ear Hear 28(2 Suppl):102S–106SCrossRefPubMed

26.

Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV (2004) Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 25(5):447–463CrossRefPubMed

27.

Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F et al (2009) Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3‑dimensional rotational x‑ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. Otol Neurotol 30(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed

28.

Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT et al (2005) Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII Bionic Ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies. Acta Otolaryngol 125(7):732–735CrossRefPubMed

29.

Holstad B, Sonneveldt VG, Fears BT et al (2009) Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T‑ and C‑levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 30(1):115–127CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hughes ML (2010) Fundamentals of Clinical ECAP Measures in Cochlear Implants: Part 1: Use of the ECAP in Speech Processor Programming. AudiologyOnline. 2nd ed. http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/fundamentals-clinical-ecap-measures-in-846. Zugegriffen: 20. Dez 2015

31.

Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, Gervais JP (2000) Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear Hear 21(2):164–174CrossRefPubMed

32.

Jeon EK, Brown CJ, Etler CP, O’Brien S, Chiou LK, Abbas PJ (2010) Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 21(1):16–27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Kileny PR, Meiteles LZ, Zwolan TA, Telian SA (1995) Cochlear implant device failure: diagnosis and management. Am J Otol 16(2):164–171PubMed

34.

Kosaner J, Anderson I, Turan Z, Deibl M (2009) The use of ESRT in fitting children with cochlear implants. J Int Adv Otol 5(1):70–79

35.

Lorens A, Walkowiak A, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski H, Anderson I (2004) ESRT and MCL correlations in experienced paediatric cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int 5(1):28–37CrossRefPubMed

36.

Mason S (2003) The electrically evoked auditory brainstem response. In: Cullington HE (Hrsg) Cochlear Implants: Objective Measures. Whurr, London and Philadelphia, S 130–159

37.

Mason S (1997) Keynote lecture: objective measures. Am J Otol 18(6 Suppl):S84–S87PubMed

38.

Mason SM, Sheppard S, Garnham CW, Lutman ME, O’Donoghue GM, Gibbin KP (1994) Improving the relationship of intraoperative EABR threshold to T‑level in young children receiving the Nucleus cochlear implant. In: Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES (Hrsg) Advances in Cochlear Implants. Manz, Wien, S 44–49

39.

Mens LHM (2007) Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity. Trends Amplif 11(3):143–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Michel F (2016) Progressively recovering auditory brainstem response in a cochlear-implanted child after meningitis: a case report. Otol Neurotol 37(1):16–18CrossRefPubMed

41.

Miller CA, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Chi SL (2008) The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hear Res 242(1-2):184–197CrossRefPubMed

42.

Mittal R, Panwar SS (2009) Correlation between intra-operative high rate neural response telemetry measurements and behaviourally obtained threshold and comfort levels in patients using Nucleus 24 cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 10(2):103–111CrossRefPubMed

43.

Nevoux J, Loundon N, Leboulanger N et al (2010) Cochlear implant in the carotid canal. Case report and literature review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74(6):701–703CrossRefPubMed

44.

Pelizzone M, Kasper A, Montandon P (1989) Electrically evoked responses in cochlear implant patients. Audiology 28(4):230–238CrossRefPubMed

45.

Plant K, Law MA, Whitford L et al (2005) Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the contour electrode array. Ear Hear 26(6):651–668CrossRefPubMed

46.

Poley M, Overmyer E, Craun P et al (2015) Does pediatric cochlear implant insertion technique affect intraoperative neural response telemetry thresholds? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79(9):1404–1407CrossRefPubMed

47.

Potts LG, Skinner MW, Gotter BD, Strube MJ, Brenner CA (2007) Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T‑ and C‑levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 28(4):495–511CrossRefPubMed

48.

Rajati M, Ghassemi MM, Bakhshaee M, Tale MR, Tayarani H (2014) Effect of stylet removal on neural response telemetry and stapedial reflex thresholds during cochlear implantation. Auris Nasus Larynx 41(3):255–258CrossRefPubMed

49.

Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ (2002) A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear 23(6):532–539CrossRefPubMed

50.

Spivak L, Auerbach C, Vambutas A, Geshkovich S, Wexler L, Popecki B (2011) Electrical compound action potentials recorded with automated neural response telemetry: threshold changes as a function of time and electrode position. Ear Hear 32(1):104–113CrossRefPubMed

51.

Stephan K, Welzl-Müller K (2000) Post-operative stapedius reflex tests with simultaneous loudness scaling in patients supplied with cochlear implants. Audiology 39(1):13–18CrossRefPubMed

52.

Tange RA, Grolman W, Maat A (2006) Intracochlear misdirected implantation of a cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 126(6):650–652CrossRefPubMed

53.

Todt I, Basta D, Ernst A (2011) Helix electrode pull back: electrophysiology and surgical results. Cochlear Implants Int 12(Suppl 1):S73–S75CrossRef

54.

Valero J, Blaser S, Papsin BC, James AL, Gordon KA (2012) Electrophysiologic and behavioral outcomes of cochlear implantation in children with auditory nerve hypoplasia. Ear Hear 33(1):3–18CrossRefPubMed

55.

Viccaro M, Covelli E, Seta E de et al (2009) The importance of intra-operative imaging during cochlear implant surgery. Cochlear Implants Int 10(4):198–202CrossRefPubMed

56.

Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Polak M et al (2011) Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 73(4):189–195CrossRefPubMed

57.

Wesarg T, Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Zirn S (2014) Intraoperative audiologisch-technische Diagnostik bei der Cochleaimplantatversorgung. HNO 62(10):725–734CrossRefPubMed

58.

Willeboer C, Smoorenburg GF (2006) Comparing cochlear implant users‘ speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or on compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear 27(6):789–798CrossRefPubMed

59.

Wolfe J, Kasulis H (2008) Relationships among objective measures and speech perception in adult users of the HiResolution Bionic Ear. Cochlear Implants Int 9(2):70–81CrossRefPubMed

60.

Yamazaki H, Naito Y, Fujiwara K et al (2014) Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response-based evaluation of the spatial distribution of auditory neuronal tissue in common cavity deformities. Otol Neurotol 35(8):1394–1402CrossRefPubMed

61.

Zirn S, Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Wesarg T (2015) Interaural stimulation timing in single sided deaf cochlear implant users. Hear Res 328:148–156CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Intra- und postoperative elektrophysiologische Diagnostik
verfasst von: Dr.-Ing. T. Wesarg
S. Arndt
A. Aschendorff
R. Laszig
R. Beck
L. Jung
S. Zirn
Publikationsdatum: 19.07.2016
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Schlagwort: Cochlea Implantat
Erschienen in: HNO / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0017-6192
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-0458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0195-x

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

16.04.2024 | HNO-Chirurgie | Nachrichten

Update HNO

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Intra- und postoperative elektrophysiologische Diagnostik

Zusammenfassung

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

HNO-Op. auch mit über 90?

Intrakapsuläre Tonsillektomie gewinnt an Boden

Bilateraler Hörsturz hat eine schlechte Prognose

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update HNO

Springer Medizin

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Pathophysiologie des Hörverlusts

Zufallsbefund dicker Lymphknoten: Was steckte dahinter?

Basalzellkarzinom: So gehen Sie operativ vor

Cochleaimplantat heute

Cochleaimplantate: Das ist aktuell technisch möglich

Zertifikat – Zertifizierung – Zertifizitis

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

HNO-Op. auch mit über 90?

Intrakapsuläre Tonsillektomie gewinnt an Boden

Bilateraler Hörsturz hat eine schlechte Prognose

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update HNO