Research Article - The International Tinnitus Journal (2019) Volume 23, Issue 2

Comparison of Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) results of cochlear implanted children in view of pre-operative Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)

¹Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Istinye University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Turkey.

²Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Japan

Send correspondence to: Selim Unsal Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Istinye University, Faculty of health Sciences, Turkey, Email: sunsal@istinye.edu.tr Phone:+905535938536

Paper submitted to the ITJ-EM (Editorial Manager System) on October 15, 2019; and accepted on December 06, 2019.

Citation:Unsal S,Gunduz M.Comparison of Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) results of cochlear implanted children in view of pre-operative Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR).Int Tinnitus J. 2019;23(2):122-124.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) results of the cochlear implanted children who showed wave 5 and who could not, in preimplantation ABR. Material and method: 24 children (11 boys, 13 girls) with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. Age of children ranged between 13 and 60 months (mean 30 months). All participated children were implanted with Cochlear® Nucleus brand devices. In preoperative ABR evaluation with click stimulus in 100 dBnHL intensity level, 9 children showed wave V and 15 children did not. We compared intraoperative NRT results of 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 22nd electrodes, those were selected from 22 electrodes, of the two groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the children who showed wave V and who did not in preoperative ABR, when compared the intraoperative NRT results of 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 22nd electrodes (p>0,05). Conclusion: intraoperative NRT was obtained in all the implanted children with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss, even if they received wave V or not in preoperative ABR. There was no difference between any of the parameters of the test results of the two groups. Normal NRT results can be achievable when there is no wave V in preoperative ABR.

Keywords

Cochlear implant, NRT, ABR.

Introduction

Cochlear implant is a complex device that can be placed surgically to the children and adults, who have bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss and could not benefit from hearing aids[1-3]. Electrodes are placed in cochlea to stimulate the cochlear nerve and mimic the tonotopic organization of cochlea. Electrical impulse bypasses the damaged hair cells and directly stimulates the cochlear nerve fibers[4]. With this stimulation action potential is formed in the nerve fibers and perceived as the hearing sensation[5-7]. Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) is a method that directly measures the compound action potential in the cochlear nerve of the cochlear implant users[8]. This stimulation is the main purpose of the cochlear implant. Action potentials of the cochlear nerve can be measured in both intraoperative and postoperative period. In pediatric group, cochlear implant decision must be made with the complete audiological examination. Audiological evaluation includes immitansmetry, ipsi and contralateral acoustic reflexes, Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE), free field evaluations and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)[9- 11]. Wave V cannot be achieved in those who have severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss in ABR test. This situation may cause a negative impression such as, the one cannot benefit from cochlear implant when deciding implantation. We aimed to show action potential in the Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) of the cochlear implanted pediatric group patients who could not show wave V in pre implantation ABR[12].

Materials and Methods

This study was carried out in Turgut ozal University Hospital, ENT Department. All cochlear implant candidate children underwent complete audiological evaluation after full physical examination[13]. Twenty four children (11 boys, 13 girls) with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. Age of children ranged between 13 and 60 months (mean 30 months)[14]. All participated children were implanted with Cochlear® Nucleus brand devices. In preoperative ABR evaluation click stimulus was used in 100 dBnHL intensity level, and 9 children showed wave V and 15 children did not. We compared intraoperative NRT results of 1^st, 6^th, 11^th, 16^th and 22^nd electrodes, those were selected from 22 electrodes, of the two groups. Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the NRT results of the cochlear implanted children who showed wave 5 and who could not, in ABR test made in the preoperative period. Differences were considered significant when p value was 0.05 or less[15-17].

Results

NRT results of the cochlear implanted children who showed wave 5 and who could not, in preimplantation ABR, were shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Intraoperative NRT results derived from 5 electrodes (1^st, 6^th, 11^th, 16^th and 22^nd electrodes) of the cochlear implanted children who showed wave 5 and who could not, in preimplantation ABR, were evaluated and compared. The two groups did not show statistically significant difference regarding NRT results (p?0,05) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Table 1:  NRT results of the children who showed wave V in ABR.

Table 2: NRT results of the children who could not show wave V in ABR.

Figure 1. NRT result of a child who showed wave V in ABR.

Figure 2. NRT result of a child who could not show wave V in ABR.

Discussion

Measurement of action potentials that occur in the auditory nerve is an important factor in terms of demonstrating the success of cochlear implants. Action potential of the cochlear nerve caused by cochlear implant is measured by all cochlear implant manufacturers and play a basic role in implant fitting. For recording and measuring the action potential of the cochlear nerve created by cochlear implant, Cochlear® company named the firmware as Neural Response Telemetry (NRT), Advanced Bionics® company named as Neural Response Imaging (NRI) and Med-El® company named as Auditory Nerve Response Telemetry (ART). In our study, we obtained and compared intraoperative NRT results of 22 children who underwent cochlear implantation using Cochlear® Nucleus model implant and did not find any difference between NRT results. While it was not statistically significant, mean NRT values increased from apical to basal of the cochlea. NRT’s being a measurement which facilitates programming of the speech processor in pediatric cochlear implant users is the most important role in clinical practice. In many studies, correlation was shown between NRT and thresholds using to program speech processor. Mean NRT thresholds of the apical electrodes were found lower than the medial and basal electrodes. Reduced NRT thresholds despite the less number of spiral ganglion of the apical region is attributed to narrow structure and therefore closer location of the electrode to modiolus and spiral ganglion showed that NRT thresholds in apical region is lower. In view of these NRT results, when determining the Threshold level (T level) in programming implant it can be said that real thresholds of the basal electrodes are higher than medial and apical electrodes, especially for the patients who showed no response in ABR test. NRT levels in programming are between threshold/comfort (T/C level) levels, in some researches it is above the C level.

Conclusion

Results of NRT testing can be used in cochlear implant programming. In children appropriate cochlear implant programming is extremely important. In adults, behavioral results and satisfaction rating can be obtained but they can be rarely achieved in children. For this reason, objective parameters should be obtained by using NRT and have to be used to determine T/C levels. Identification of NRT thresholds of apical, medial and basal regions and using them in programming is important in appropriate programming. Lower NRT thresholds in apical region and increase through basal region should be taken into account and T/C levels should be programmed according to this. ABR test have an important role in cochlear implant decision and should be performed in all the children. The absence of wave V does not have negative effect on cochlear implantation

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Greco A, Gallo A, Fusconi M, Marinelli C, Macri GF, de Vincentiis M. Meniere's disease might be an autoimmune condition? Autoimmun Rev. 2012;11:731-8.
2. Sajjadi H, Paparella MM. Meniere's disease. Lancet. 2008;372:406-14.
3. Balatsouras DG, Ganelis P, Aspris A, Economou NC, Moukos A, Koukoutsis G. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo associated with Meniere's disease: epidemiological, pathophysiologic, clinical, and therapeutic aspects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121:682-8.
4. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Meniere’s disease. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Foundation, Inc. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;113:181-5.
5. Grieve SM, Obholzerc R, Malitzd N, Gibsonc WP, Parkera GD. Imaging of endolymphatic hydrops in Meniere’s disease at 1.5 T using phase-sensitive inversion recovery: (1) Demonstration of feasibility and (2) overcoming the limitations of variable gadolinium absorption. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:331-8.
6. Kantner C, Gürkov R. Characteristics and clinical applications of ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Hear Res. 2012;294:55-63.
7. Iwasaki S, McGarvie LA, Halmagyi GM, Burgess Am, Kim J, Colebatch JG. Head taps evoke a crossed vestibulo-ocular reflex. Neurology. 2007;68:1227-29.
8. Rosengren SM, Welgampola MS, Colebatch JG. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: past, present and future. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121:636-51.
9. Colebatch JG, Halmagyi GM, Skuse NF. Myogenic potentials generated by a click-evoked vestibulocollic reflex. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1994;57:190-7.
10. Todd NPM, Rosengren SM, Aw ST, Colebatch JG. Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials (O-VEMPs) produced by air- and bone-conducted sound. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118:381-90.
11. Welgampola MS. Evoked potential testing in neuro-otology. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008; 21:29-35.
12. Weber KP, MacDougall HG, Halmagyi GM, Curthoys IS. Impulsive testing of semicircular-canal function using videooculography. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1164: 486-91.
13. Perez N, Rama-Lopez J. Head-impulse and caloric tests in patients with dizziness. Otol Neurotol. 2003;24:913-17.
14. Magliulo G, Gagliardi M, Appiani GC, Damico R. Preservation of the saccular nerve and of the vestibular evoked myogenic potential during vestibular schwannoma surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2003;24:308-11.
15. Vannucchi P, Pecci R, Giannoni B, Di Giustino F, Santimone R, Mengucci A. Apogeotropic Posterior Semicircular Canal Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: Some Clinical and Therapeutic Considerations. Audiol Res. 2015;5:38-43.
16. Lopez-Escamez JA, Molina MI, Gamiz MJ. Anterior semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and positional down beating nystagmus. Am J Otolaryngol. 2006;27:173-8.
17. Shim DB, Song CE, Jung EJ, Ko KM, Park JW, Song MH. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo with simultaneous involvement of multiple semicircular canals. Korean J Audiol. 2014;18:126-30.
18. Hale T, Trahan H, Parent-Buck T. Evaluation of the Patient with Dizziness and Balance Disorders. In: Katz J Edition Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 7th Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2015:399-425.
19. Blodow A, Pannasch S, Walther LE. Detection of isolated covert saccades with the video head impulse test in peripheral vestibular disorders. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2013;40:348-51.
20. Mcgarvie LA, Curthoys IS, Macdougall HG, Halmagy? GM. What does the dissociation between the results of video head impulse versus caloric testing reveal about the vestibular dysfunction in Ménière’s disease? Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2015;135:859-65.
21. Blodow A, Heinze M, Bloching MB, Von Brevern M, Radtke A, Lempert T. Caloric stimulation and video-head impulse testing in Ménière’s disease and vestibular migraine. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2014;134:1239-44.
22. Mahringer A, Rambold HA. Caloric test and video-head impulse: A study of vertigo/dizziness patients in a community hospital. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 271: 463-72.
23. Marques P, Manrique-Huarte R, Perez-Fernandez N. Single Intratympanic Gentamicin Injection in Meniere’s Disease: VOR Change and Prognostic Usefulness. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1915-20.
24. Waele C. VEMP induced by high level clicks. A new test of saccular otolith function. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;58:98-109.
25. Kuo SW, Yang TH, Young YH. Changes in vestibular evoked myogenic potentials after Meniere attacks. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114:717-21.
26. Hong SM, Yeo GS, Kim WS, Cha CI. The results of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, with consideration of age-related changes, in vestibular neuritis, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, and Meniere?s disease. Acta otolaryngol. 2008; 128: 861-5.
27. Welgampola MS, Colebatch JG. Characteristics and clinical applications of vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials. Neurology. 2005;64:1682-8.
28. Timmer FCA, Zhou G, Guinan JJ, Kujawa SG, Herrmann BS, Rauch SD. Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP) in patients with Meniere?s disease with drop attacks. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:776-9.
29. Young Y, Huang T, Cheng P. Assessing the stage of Meniere’s disease using vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003; 129:815-8.
30. Wang SJ, Yeh TH, Chang CH, Young YH. Consistent Latencies of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Ear and Hearing. 2008;29:923-9.
31. Murofushi T, Shimizu K, Takegoshi H, Cheng PW. Diagnostic value of prolonged latencies in the vestibular evoked myogenic potential. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1069-72.
32. Akkuzu G, Akkuzu B, Ozluoglu LN. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and Meniere’s disease. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263:510-7.
33. Nagai N, Ogawa Y, Hagiwara A, Ostuka k, Inagaki T, Shimizu S, et al. Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials induced by bone-conducted vibration in patients with unilateral inner ear disease. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2014;134:151-8.
34. Murofushi T, Nakahara H, Yoshimura E, Tsuda Y. Association of air-conducted sound o-VEMP findings with c-VEMP and caloric test findings in patients with unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011;131:945-50.
35. Korres S, Balatsouras DG, Kaberos A, Economou C, Kandiloros D, Ferekidis E. Occurrence of semicircular canal involvement in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otol Neurotol. 2002;23:926-32.
36. Caldas MA, Ganança CF, Ganança FF, Ganança MM, Caovilla HH. Clinical features of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75:502-6.