Auditory brainstem implant outcomes and MAP parameters: Report of experiences in adults and children

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_GOFFI-GOMEZ_Auditory_brainstem_implant_outcomes_and_MAP_parameters_Report_2012.PDF (925.06 KB)
Citações na Scopus
28
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2012
Editora
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI
Indexadores
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, v.76, n.2, p.257-264, 2012
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) was first developed to help neurofibromatosis type 2 patients. Recently, its use has been recently extended to adults with non-tumor etiologies and children with profound hearing loss who were not candidates for a cochlear implant (Cl). Although the results has been extensively reported, the stimulation parameters involved behind the outcomes have received less attention. Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the audiologic outcomes and the MAP parameters in ABI adults and children at our center. Methods: Retrospective chart review. Five adults and four children were implanted with the ABI24M from September 2005 to June 2009. In the adult patients, four had Neurofibromatosis type 2, and one had postmeningitic deafness with complete ossification of both cochleae. Three of the children had cochlear malformation or dysplasia, and one had complete ossified cochlea due to meningitis. Map parameters as well as the intraoperative electrical auditory brainstem responses were collected. Evaluation was performed with at least six months of device use and included free-field hearing thresholds, speech perception tests in the adult patients and for the children, the Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS) and (ESP) were used to evaluate the development of auditory skills, besides the MUSS to evaluate. Results: The number of active electrodes that did not cause any non-auditory sensation varied from three to nineteen. All of them were programmed with SPEAK strategy, and the pulse widths varied from 100 to 300 mu s. Free-field thresholds with warble tones varied from very soft auditory sensation of 70 dBHL at 250 Hz to a pure tone average of 45 dBHL. Speech perception varied from none to 60% open-set recognition of sentences in silence in the adult population and from no auditory sensation at all to a slight improvement in the IT-MAIS/MAIS scores. Conclusion: We observed that ABI may be a good option for offering some hearing attention to both adults and children. In children, the results might not be enough to ensure oral language development. Programming the speech processor in children demands higher care to the audiologist.
Palavras-chave
Auditory brainstem implant, Neurofibromatosis, Cochlear malformation, Map parameters, Pulse width
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/904
Referências
  1. Bento R., 2008, REV BRAS OTORRINOLAR, V74, P647, DOI 10.1590/S0034-72992008000500002
  2. Bento R.F., ACTA OTOLAR IN PRESS
  3. Bevilacqua M.C., 2001, ISS 1 COCHLEAR AM
  4. BIAP Recommendation nο02/1 bis, 1996, BIAP REC 02 1 BIS AU
  5. Carner M, 2009, ACTA OTO-LARYNGOL, V129, P458, DOI 10.1080/00016480902737978
  6. Clark GM, 2003, COCHLEAR IMPLANTS FU, P160
  7. Colletti L, 2008, LARYNGOSCOPE, V118, P1443, DOI [10.1097/MLG.0b013e318173a011, 10.1097/MLG.0b03e318173a011]
  8. Colletti Vittorio, 2006, Adv Otorhinolaryngol, V64, P167
  9. Colletti V, 2009, OTOL NEUROTOL, V30, P614, DOI 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181a864f2
  10. Diamante V.G., 2007, CIR CABEZA CUELLO, V67, P244
  11. Eisenberg LS, 2008, OTOL NEUROTOL, V29, P251
  12. Frohne C, 2000, J LARYNGOL OTOL, V114, P11
  13. Gharabaghi A, 2008, NEUROSURGERY, V62, P983, DOI [10.1227/01.neu.0000318191.63901.2b, 10.1227/01.NEU.0000310702.10546.77]
  14. Goffi-Gomez MV, 2010, EUR ARCH OTO-RHINO-L, V267, P515, DOI 10.1007/s00405-009-1092-7
  15. Goffi-Gomez M.V.S., 2004, ARQUIVOS INT OTORRIN, V8, P303
  16. Grayeli AB, 2008, OTOL NEUROTOL, V29, P1140, DOI 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818b6238
  17. Kuchta J, 2007, ACTA NEUROCHIR SUPPL, V97, P443
  18. Lenarz T, 2001, OTOL NEUROTOL, V22, P823, DOI 10.1097/00129492-200111000-00019
  19. Maini Sangeeta, 2009, Cochlear Implants Int, V10 Suppl 1, P33, DOI 10.1002/cii.383
  20. Middlebrooks J.C., 2009, SQUIRE ENCY NEUROSCI, P745
  21. Moller Aage R, 2006, Adv Otorhinolaryngol, V64, P206
  22. Nevison B, 2002, EAR HEARING, V23, P170, DOI 10.1097/00003446-200206000-00002
  23. Nevison Barry, 2006, Adv Otorhinolaryngol, V64, P154
  24. Orlandi A.C.L, 1998, PROFONO, V10, P87
  25. Otto SR, 2002, J NEUROSURG, V96, P1063, DOI 10.3171/jns.2002.96.6.1063
  26. Otto SR, 2008, OTOL NEUROTOL, V29, P1147, DOI 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818becb4
  27. Otto SR, 2004, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V130, P656, DOI 10.1001/archotol.130.5.656
  28. Sanna M, 2006, LARYNGOSCOPE, V116, P1700, DOI 10.1097/01.mlg.0000231739.79208.97
  29. Schwartz MS, 2008, NEUROTHERAPEUTICS, V5, P128, DOI 10.1016/j.nurt.2007.10.068
  30. Shepherd Robert K, 2006, Adv Otorhinolaryngol, V64, P186

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOF
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/32