Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative audiologisch-technische Diagnostik bei der Cochleaimplantatversorgung

Intraoperative audiological-technical diagnostics during cochlear implant surgery

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
HNO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Während der Cochleaimplantat(CI)-Operation ist eine audiologisch-technische Diagnostik notwendig, welche die technische Überprüfung der Funktion des Implantats sowie die audiologische Beurteilung seiner physiologischen Ankopplung an den Hörnerv bei elektrischer Stimulation beinhaltet, um im Bedarfsfall noch vor dem Ende des chirurgischen Eingriffs erforderliche Interventionsmaßnahmen treffen zu können. Die technische Funktionsprüfung umfasst die Kopplungsprüfung, die Implantatintegritätsprüfung sowie die Impedanz- und Feldtelemetrie, anhand derer die Funktion der Elektronik und der Elektroden des Implantats beurteilt werden. Die audiologische Diagnostik zur Beurteilung der physiologischen Funktion des Implantats beinhaltet die visuelle Erfassung der elektrisch evozierten Stapediusreflexe und die Messung der elektrisch evozierten Summenaktionspotenziale des Hörnervs einschließlich ihrer Reizschwellen.

Abstract

During cochlear implant (CI) surgery, audiological-technical diagnostics is required which includes the proof of the implant function as well as the verification of its physiological coupling to the auditory nerve in order to undertake required interventions before the end of the surgery in case of need. The technical function check implies the coupling check, the implant integrity check, as well as impedance and field telemetry, and allows for assessment of implant electronics and electrode function. The audiological diagnostics used for verification of the physiological implant function incorporate visual registration of the electrically evoked stapedius reflexes and measurement of electrically evoked compound action potentials of the cochlear nerve, including their stimulation thresholds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Advanced Bionics (2014) Sound Wave. Version 2.2.1.7

  2. 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):261–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Allum JH, Greisiger R, Probst R (2002) Relationship of intraoperative electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds to maximum comfortable loudness levels of children with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 41(2):93–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Botros A, Dijk B van, Killian M (2007) AutoNRT: an automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the nucleus freedom cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med 40(1):15–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B (1990) Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 88(3):1385–1391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):151–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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):105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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):637–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlson ML, Archibald DJ, Dabade TS et al (2010) Prevalence and timing of individual cochlear implant electrode failures. Otol Neurotol 31(6):893–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):1065–1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cochlear (2013) Custom Sound EP. Version 4.0

  15. Cosetti MK, Troob SH, Latzman JM et al (2012) An evidence-based algorithm for intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 33(2):169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crawford MW, White MC, Propst EJ et al (2009) Dose-dependent suppression of the electrically elicited stapedius reflex by general anesthetics in children undergoing cochlear implant surgery. Anesth Analg 108(5):1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, Lusk RP (2013) How well do cochlear implant intraoperative impedance measures predict postoperative electrode function? Otol Neurotol 34(2):239–244

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gordin A, Papsin B, Gordon K (2010) Packing of the cochleostomy site affects auditory nerve response thresholds in precurved off-stylet cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 31(2):204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gordon KA, Papsin BC (2013) From nucleus 24–513: changing cochlear implant design affects auditory response thresholds. Otol Neurotol 34(3):436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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):447–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jägle P (2014) Elektrodenimpedanzen bei MED-EL CI-Systemen. Persönliche Mitteilung

  23. Ji F, Li JN, Liu K et al (2014) NRT test in auditory neuropathy patients with cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol 134(9):930–942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koch DB, Overstreet EH (2003) Neural response imaging: measuring auditory-nerve responses from the cochlea with the Hiresolution(TM) Bionic Ear System. http://www.bionicear.com. Zugegriffen: 9. Sept. 2014

  25. Lehnhardt E (2001) Impedanzmessung. In: Lehnhardt E, Laszig R (Hrsg) Praxis der Audiometrie. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 121–152

  26. Lenarz T, Kuzma J, Weber BP et al (2000) New Clarion electrode with positioner: insertion studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 185:16–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lindström B, Bredberg G (1997) Intraoperative electrical stimulation of the stapedius reflex in children. Am J Otol 18(6 Suppl):S118–S119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Makhdoum MJA (1998) The influence of the concentration of volatile anesthetics on the stapedius reflex determined intraoperatively during cochlear implantation in children. Am J Otol 19(5):598–603

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mens LH, Boyle PJ, Mulder JJ (2003) The Clarion electrode positioner: approximation to the medial wall and current focussing? Audiol Neurootol 8(3):166–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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):184–197

  32. 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):103–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Neurelec (2014) DIGISONIC® SP cochlear implant – SURGERY Instructions.

  34. 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):701–703

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Opie JM, Allum JH, Probst R (1997) Evaluation of electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold measured through three different cochlear implant systems. Am J Otol 18(6 Suppl):S107–S108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Spitzer P, Strahl S, Leander A, Franz D (2014) ART Guide.

  38. Stephan K, Welzl-Müller K, Stiglbrunner H (1988) Stapedius reflex threshold in cochlear implant patients. Audiology 27(4):227–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Todt I, Basta D, Eisenschenk A, Ernst A (2005) The „pull-back“ technique for Nucleus 24 perimodiolar electrode insertion. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132(5):751–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsuji RK, Goffi-Gomez MV, Peralta CO et al (2009) Neural response thresholds in the Nucleus Contour cochlear implant before and after stylet removal. Acta Otolaryngol 129(11):1330–1336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Den Abbeele T, Noel-Petroff N, Akin I et al (2012) Multicentre investigation on electrically evoked compound action potential and stapedius reflex: how do these objective measures relate to implant programming parameters? Cochlear Implants Int 13(1):26–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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):554–558

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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):558–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Vanpoucke FJ, Boermans PP, Frijns JH (2012) Assessing the placement of a cochlear electrode array by multidimensional scaling. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(2):307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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):789–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. T. Wesarg, S. Arndt, A. Aschendorff, R. Laszig und S. Zirn geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland

    T. Wesarg, S. Arndt, A. Aschendorff, R. Laszig & S. Zirn

Authors
  1. T. Wesarg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Arndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Aschendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Laszig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Zirn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Wesarg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wesarg, T., Arndt, S., Aschendorff, A. et al. Intraoperative audiologisch-technische Diagnostik bei der Cochleaimplantatversorgung. HNO 62, 725–734 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-014-2936-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-014-2936-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation