Interaural Difference of Wave V Predicting Postoperative Hearing in Gardner–Robertson Class II Acoustic Neuroma Patients

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Patients with acoustic neuroma classified in Gardner and Robertson (GR) Class II should be considered to have useful hearing, and patients classified in Class III should be considered to have not-useful hearing. Therefore, it is important for acoustic neuroma surgery to distinguish between postoperative GR Class II and Class III patients by brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs). We evaluate which BAEP parameter is the best for predicting postoperative GR Class II or III in 36 preoperative GR Class II patients with unilateral acoustic neuroma. Delay in wave V latency, reduction ratio in wave V amplitude, and interaural difference of wave V (IT5) are evaluated by a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve in this study. IT5 is the best distinguishing parameter between postoperative Class II and Class III. IT5 below 1.12 millisecond (msec) should be a good marker to preserve postoperative useful hearing. Thus, comparing the latency of wave V on both sides is important, and surgeons would be able to make more informed decisions during surgery by checking IT5 on BAEPs.

• References

• 1 Harper CM, Harner SG, Slavit DH , et al. Effect of BAEP monitoring on hearing preservation during acoustic neuroma resection. Neurology 1992; 42 (8) 1551-1553
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Matthies C, Samii M. Management of vestibular schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): the value of neurophysiology for evaluation and prediction of auditory function in 420 cases. Neurosurgery 1997; 40 (5) 919-929 , discussion 929–930
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Neu M, Strauss C, Romstöck J, Bischoff B, Fahlbusch R. The prognostic value of intraoperative BAEP patterns in acoustic neurinoma surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 110 (11) 1935-1941
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Roberson Jr JB, Jackson LE, McAuley JR. Acoustic neuroma surgery: absent auditory brainstem response does not contraindicate attempted hearing preservation. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (6) 904-910
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bischoff B, Romstöck J, Fahlbusch R, Buchfelder M, Strauss C. Intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential pattern and perioperative vasoactive treatment for hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma surgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79 (2) 170-175
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Gardner G, Robertson JH. Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988; 97 (1) 55-66
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Aihara N, Murakami S, Watanabe N , et al. Cochlear nerve action potential monitoring with the microdissector in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Skull Base 2009; 19 (5) 325-332
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tokimura H, Asakura T, Tokimura Y , et al. [Intraoperative ABR monitoring during cerebello-pontine angle surgery]. No Shinkei Geka 1990; 18 (11) 1023-1027 [Japanese]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Polo G, Fischer C, Sindou MP, Marneffe V. Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring during microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential changes and warning values to prevent hearing loss—prospective study in a consecutive series of 84 patients. Neurosurgery 2004; 54 (1) 97-104 , discussion 104–106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Phillips DJ, Kobylarz EJ, De Peralta ET, Stieg PE, Selesnick SH. Predictive factors of hearing preservation after surgical resection of small vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (9) 1463-1468
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 James ML, Husain AM. Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring: when is change in wave V significant?. Neurology 2005; 65 (10) 1551-1555
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Sekiya T, Shimamura N, Hatayama T, Suzuki S. [Establishment of the criteria to evaluate intraoperative changes of brainstem auditory evoked potentials during microvascular decompression and acoustic neurinoma excision]. No Shinkei Geka 1996; 24 (5) 431-436 [Japanese]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240 (4857) 1285-1293
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Selters WA, Brackmann DE. Acoustic tumor detection with brain stem electric response audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1977; 103 (4) 181-187
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Sindou MP. Microvascular decompression for primary hemifacial spasm. Importance of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005; 147 (10) 1019-1026 , discussion 1026
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar