ArticleThe Laryngoscope2020
Effect of anesthesia on evoked auditory responses in pediatric auditory brainstem implant surgery.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten-year follow-up of auditory brainstem implants: From intra-operative electrical auditory brainstem responses to perceptual results.PloS one · 2023Review
- Clinical and scientific innovations in auditory brainstem implants.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2021Review
- miR-155 Regulates the Proliferation of Glioma Cells Through PI3K/AKT Signaling.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveElectrically evoked auditory brainstem responses (EABR) guide placement of the multichannel auditory brainstem implant (ABI) array during surgery. EABRs are also recorded under anesthesia in nontumor pediatric ABI recipients prior to device activation to confirm placement and guide device programming. We examine the influence of anesthesia on evoked response morphology in pediatric ABI users by comparing intraoperative with postoperative EABR recordings. STUDY
designRetrospective review.
methodsSeven children underwent ABI surgery by way of retrosigmoid craniotomy. General anesthesia included inhaled sevoflurane induction and propofol maintenance during which EABRs were recorded to confirm accurate positioning of the ABI. A mean of 7.7 ± 2.8 weeks following surgery, the ABI was activated under general anesthesia or sedation (dexmedetomidine) and EABR recordings were made. A qualitative analysis of intraoperative and postoperative waveform morphology was performed.
resultsSeven subjects (mean age 20.6 months) underwent nine ABI surgeries (seven primary, two revisions) and nine activations. EABRs were observed in eight of nine postoperative recordings. In three cases, intraoperative EABRs during general anesthesia were similar to postoperative EABRs with sedation. In one case, sevoflurane and propofol were used for intra- and postoperative recordings, and waveforms were also similar. In four cases, amplitude and latency changes were observed for intraoperative versus postoperative EABRs.
conclusionSimilarity of EABR morphology in the anesthetized versus sedated condition suggests that anesthesia does not have a large effect on far-field evoked potentials. Changes in EABR waveform morphology observed postoperatively may be influenced by other factors such as movements of the surface array. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:507-513, 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.