Integrated Profile to Assess Auditory Nerve-Auditory Pathway Integrity

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the Integrated Cochlear Profile for Assessing Auditory Nerve-Auditory Pathway Integrity (ICP-API), as proposed by our group, in the selection of cochlear implant candidates. Procedures: The API of the candidates for cochlear implantation were assessed with the ICP-API, which consists of 5 categories including: audiological testing; radiological imaging study; ear-canal electric response audiometry; response to environmental sounds; speech development level. The auditory rehabilitation effects of the cochlear implantation receivers were evaluated postoperatively. Results: Sixty-six of 68 candidates who met the criteria of the ICP-API received cochlear implantation with improved hearing and speech development postoperatively. The remaining 2 of the 68 candidates were diagnosed with bilateral auditory nerves aplasia, and therefore failed cochlear implants were avoided. Conclusion: The ICP-API is valuable and feasible for the selection of cochlear implant candidates. The API should be considered as one of the most important criteria for cochlear implant candidate selection.

Hearing Restoration for Adults with Vestibular Schwannoma in the Only Hearing Ear: Ipsilateral or Contralateral Cochlear Implantation?

“…The EPST may provide some indication of the integrity of the pathway and the likelihood of success [15,16]. In this study, patient 3 had a negative EPST result on the side with tumor resection, whereas the other 2 patients had positive results on both sides.…”

Diagnostic Yield of MRI for Pediatric Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

“…75 It is classically seen when contrast agents are given to patients in renal failure and is typically not in the presence of normal kidney function. The condition is very infrequent in the 83 Kong, 2009 29 Parry, 2005 5 Trimble, 2007 57 Russo, 2006 45 Lapointe, 2005 46 Inner ear anomalies (combined) 42% ( 41 Clemmens, 2013 47 Simons, 2006 8 Haffey, 2013 42 Miyasaka, 2010 28 Mafong, 2002 38 Tarshish, 2013 40 Kimani, 2010 48 Inner ear anomalies…”

“…For this latter reason, if a sum total number of patients affected was reported such that it was unclear whether the findings did or did not overlap within the same patients, the individual numbers were not simply summed to establish a total; in one instance it was not reported whether cochlear/aqueduct findings and internal auditory canal findings occurred in separate or overlapping patients. 29 …”

“…There was a single instance where it was not reported whether cochlear/aqueduct findings and internal auditory canal findings occurred in overlapping patients; so as to prevent imputing inaccurate patient counts, it was also excluded from the pooled analyses. 29 No data from studies of patients with auditory neuropathy are included here (see appendix). c Pooled diagnostic yields in the setting of substantial heterogeneity (ie, I 2 > 60%) should be interpreted with caution. …”

“…For this latter reason, if a sum total number of patients affected was reported such that it was unclear whether the findings did or did not overlap within the same patients, the individual numbers were not simply summed to establish a total; in one instance it was not reported whether cochlear/aqueduct findings and internal auditory canal findings occurred in separate or overlapping patients. 29 Differences in diagnostic yield were calculated as the difference between the diagnostic yield of CT and the diagnostic yield of MRI, such that a positive difference reflected a comparison suggesting a higher yield for CT, while a negative difference was indicative of greater yield from MRI. Differences were chosen, rather than relative ratios, so as to quantify comparisons in absolute rather than relative terms.…”