Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 28(02): e219-e225
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776722
Original Research

Cochlear Implant Activation in the Immediate Postoperative Period in the Operating Room

Gislaine Richter Minhoto Wiemes
1   Department of Speach Therapy, Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
,
Nicole Richter Minhoto Wiemes
1   Department of Speach Therapy, Hospital Paranaense de Otorrinolaringologia, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
,
Bettina Carvalho 
2   Department of ENT, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
,
Rogerio Hamerschmidt 
2   Department of ENT, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Cochlear implant (CI) activation usually takes place at ∼ 30 days postoperative (PO). In our service, CI surgery is performed with local anesthesia and sedation, so activation is possible with the patient's cooperation, immediately after the CI surgery, still in the operating room (OR).

Objective The objective of the present study was to provide the patient with hearing experience with the CI and to assess auditory perception immediately after surgery while still in the OR, as well as to compare impedance telemetry (IT), neural response telemetry (NRT), and comfort (C) level at two moments: in the OR and at the definitive activation, ∼ 30 days PO.

Methods Nine adult patients (12 ears) with acquired (postlingual) deafness were included. Auditory perception was evaluated through the Ling Six Sound Check, musical instruments, and clapping, presented in two different programming maps, elaborated using t-NRT, and comparing IT, NRT, and C level between the two moments.

Results We observed that while still in the OR, the patient can already present auditory detection and recognition responses. The values of IT, NRT threshold (t-NRT), and C on both dates differed, with statistical significance.

Conclusion We concluded that it is possible to provide the patient with an auditory experience with the CI immediately after surgery, and that the auditory experience and the values of electrode IT, NRT, and C vary significantly between the two moments.

Keywords

cochlear implantation - bilateral hearing loss - telemetry - impedance


Publication History

Received: 08 November 2022

Accepted: 08 June 2023

Article published online:
24 January 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferrari DV, Sameshima K, Costa FOA, Bevilacqua MC. Neural response telemetry on the nucleus 24 multichannel cochlear implant system: literature review. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004; 70 (01) 112-118
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hamerschmidt R, Moreira ATR, Wiemes GRM, Tenório SB, Tâmbara EM. Cochlear implant surgery with local anesthesia and sedation: comparison with general anesthesia. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (01) 75-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ji F, Liu K, Yang S. Clinical application of electrically evoked compound action potentials. J Otol 2014; 9: 117-121
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Botros A, Psarros C. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 367-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Souza MF, Corazza MCA, Quintilio R. Análise acústica dos instrumentos sonoros musicais usados para avaliação audiológica infantil. Rev Inic Cient Ext 2018; 1 (03) 272-282
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Ling D. Foundations of spoken language for the hearing-impaired child. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Smiley DF, Martin PF, Lance DM. Using the Ling 6- sound test everyday. Audiology Online. [Internet] 2004 . [cited 2022 May 24] [about 1p.] Available from: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/using-ling-6-sound-test-1087
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Quique Y. Métodos unisensoriales para la rehabilitación de la persona con implante coclear y métodos musicoterapéuticos como nueva herramienta de intervención. Rev Otorrinolaringol Cir Cabeza Cuello 2013; 73: 94-108
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Comerlatto MPS. Habilidades auditivas e de linguagem de crianças usuários de implante coclear análise dos marcadores clínicos de desenvolvimento. [Thesis]. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK. et al. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 45-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guedes MC, Weber R, Goffi- Gomez MVS, Brito Neto RV, Peralta CGO, Bento RF. Telemetria de resposta neural intraoperatória em usuários de implante coclear. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2005; 71 (05) 660-667
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F. et al. 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 2009; 30 (01) 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shallop JK, Facer GW, Peterson A. Neural response telemetry with the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (11) 1755-1759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Roberts S. Speech-processor fitting for cochlear implants. Cooper H. editor. Cochlear implants: a practical guide. London: Whurr Publishers; 1991: 201-218
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Shapiro W. Device programming. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL. editors. Cochlear implants. New York: Thieme; 2000: 185-198
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Lai WK, Aksit M, Akdas F, Dillier N. Longitudinal behaviour of neural response telemetry (NRT) data and clinical implications. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (05) 252-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Andrade KC, Leal MdeC, Muniz LF, Menezes PdeL, Albuquerque KM, Carnaúba AT. The importance of electrically evoked stapedial reflex in cochlear implant. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2014; 80 (01) 68-77
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Eisen MD, Franck KH. Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (06) 528-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT. et al. 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 2005; 125 (07) 732-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jeon EK, Brown CJ, Etler CP, O'Brien S, Chiou LK, Abbas PJ. 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 2010; 21 (01) 16-27
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Raghunandhan S, Ravikumar A, Kameswaran M, Mandke K, Ranjith R. Electrophysiological Correlates of Behavioral Comfort Levels in Cochlear Implantees: A Prospective Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 67 (03) 210-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Holstad BA, Sonneveldt VG, Fears BT. et al. Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (01) 115-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar