Gonca SENNAROĞLU, Merve OZBAL BATUK, Betül Çiçek ÇINAR, Ebru ZEREN, Ozlem BAYULGEN, Irem DUSUNMEZ

Evaluation of ECAP thresholds, T and C levels in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the values in threshold (T) and comfortable (C) stimulation levels as well as theneural response telemetry (NRT) measurements obtained on the first and the second cochlear implant in children with sequentialbilateral cochlear implantation (CI).Material and Methods: Thirty children with sequential bilateral CI between February 2007 and July 2018 were randomly selected.The mean age of the subjects was 7.0 years (age range: 3.3–15.2 years). The NRT thresholds, T levels, and C levels in the electrode(E) 22, E16, E11, E6, and E1 were retrospectively compared for the latest program on the first CI (CI1), and the second CI (CI2) in thepostoperative 1st, 3rd, and 6th-month follow-up visits. The duration of daily use of the speech processor on both side was alsocompared.Results: Twelve male and eightteen female subjects with sequential bilateral CI, were participated in the present study. The medianage at CI1 was 15 months and 5 years 5 months for CI1 and CI2 respectively. There was no significant difference between thethreshold NRT (tNRT) levels between two ears. The mean tNRT levels were obtained 166 CL and 179 CL in E22 and E1 respectively.The tNRT levels were found higher on the basal electrode rather than the apical electrode (p=0.02). The changes in the T and Clevels were significant in 1st, 3rd, and 6th-month follow-up visits on the CI2 side (p=0.000). The mean daily usage time of the soundprocessor was found 12.05 and 9.62 hours on CI1 and CI2 respectively.Conclusion: In children with sequential CI, the electrical stimulation levels were similar between ears. The present study shows theprogramming outcomes during the follow-up in children with sequential bilateral CI.

PDF

___

1. Brown KD, Balkany TJ. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg 2007;15:315-8.
2. Jeffs E, Redfern K, Stanfield C, et al. A pilot study to explore the experiences of congenitally or early profoundly deafened candidates who receive cochlear implants as adults. Cochlear implants int 2015;16:312-20.
3. López-Torrijo M, Mengual-Andrés S, Estellés-Ferrer R. Clinical and logopaedic results of simultaneous and sequential bilateral implants in children with severe and/or profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss: A literature review. Int J Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:786-92.
4. Basura GJ, Eapen R, Buchman CA. Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts, indications, and results. Laryngoscope 2009;119:2395-401.
5. Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M, et al. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2013;139:265-72.
6. Smulders YE, van Zon A, Stegeman I, et al. Comparison of bilateral and unilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA otolaryngology Head Neck Surg 2016;142:249-56.
7. Vaerenberg B, Smits C, De Ceulaer G, et al. Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. Scientific World J 2014;2014: 501738.
8. Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am 2012;45:111-27.
9. Domville-Lewis C, Santa Maria PL, Upson G, et al. Psychophysical map stability in bilateral sequential cochlear implantation: comparing current audiology methods to a new statistical definition. Ear Hear 2015;36:497-504.
10. Gordon KA, Abbasalipour P, Papsin BC. Balancing current levels in children with bilateral cochlear implants using electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Hear Res 2016;335:193-206.
11. Telmesani LM, Said NM. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82:28-33.
12. Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 2004;25:447-63.
13. Caldas FF, Cardoso CC, Barreto MAdSC, et al. Analysis of electrically evoked compound action potential of the auditory nerve in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82:123-30.
14. Park LR, Teagle HF, Brown KD, et al. Audiological outcomes and map characteristics in children with perimodiolar and slim straight array cochlear implants in opposite ears. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:e320-e326.
15. Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, et al. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 2002;23:28S-40S.
16. Sparreboom M, Beynon AJ, Snik AF, etb al. The effect of device use after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: An electrophysiological approach. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;86:161-6.
17. Galvin KL, Abdi R, Dowell RC, A Comparison of Electrical Stimulation Levels Across Ears for Children With Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear 2019;21.