Intraoperative Compound Action Potentials as a Predictor of Postoperative Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Cochlear Implant Users.

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander StutleyDepartment of Audiology, Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospital Group, Perth, Washington, Australia.

Caris BogdanovDepartment of Audiology, Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospital Group, Perth, Washington, Australia.

Marcus Windsor Rao VoolaDepartment of Audiology, Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospital Group, Perth, Washington, Australia.

Peter FriedlandSchool of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Washington, Australia.

Dayse Távora-VieiraDepartment of Audiology, Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospital Group, Perth, Washington, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (ECAEPs) are central brain responses to auditory stimuli that correlate with postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing outcomes. They differ from electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) which are peripheral responses that can be elicited intraoperatively and may also predict CI hearing outcomes. It is not known to what degree ECAP and ECAEP responses are associated with each other. Such a correlation, if present, may allow for an earlier and more accurate prediction of postoperative hearing outcomes.

methodsThis retrospective study involved 42 adult CI users. Threshold levels and amplitude growth function slopes of intraoperative ECAPs were compared to the latencies and peak-to-peak amplitudes of postoperative ECAEP responses at three different cochlear electrode array sites (apical, medial, and basal).

resultsA weak positive relationship was found between intraoperative ECAP thresholds and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.301, p = 0.005). Time between ECAP and ECAEP measurements was weakly correlated with P1-N1 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.321, p = 0.002) and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.340, p = 0.001). ECAP amplitude growth function slopes varied by electrode location (χ2 = 26.701, df = 2, p = 0. 000002).

conclusionThese results suggest that intraoperative ECAP responses do not robustly predict postoperative ECAEP responses, providing caution against the use of ECAPs as a predictive tool for CI hearing outcomes.

introductionElectrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (ECAEPs) are central brain responses to auditory stimuli that correlate with postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing outcomes. They differ from electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) which are peripheral responses that can be elicited intraoperatively and may also predict CI hearing outcomes. It is not known to what degree ECAP and ECAEP responses are associated with each other. Such a correlation, if present, may allow for an earlier and more accurate prediction of postoperative hearing outcomes.

methodsThis retrospective study involved 42 adult CI users. Threshold levels and amplitude growth function slopes of intraoperative ECAPs were compared to the latencies and peak-to-peak amplitudes of postoperative ECAEP responses at three different cochlear electrode array sites (apical, medial, and basal).

resultsA weak positive relationship was found between intraoperative ECAP thresholds and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.301, p = 0.005). Time between ECAP and ECAEP measurements was weakly correlated with P1-N1 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.321, p = 0.002) and ECAEP N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (r = 0.340, p = 0.001). ECAP amplitude growth function slopes varied by electrode location (χ2 = 26.701, df = 2, p = 0. 000002).

conclusionThese results suggest that intraoperative ECAP responses do not robustly predict postoperative ECAEP responses, providing caution against the use of ECAPs as a predictive tool for CI hearing outcomes.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAuditory CortexCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsEvoked Potentials, AuditoryIntraoperative Neurophysiological MonitoringAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodRetrospective StudiesAuditory evoked potentialCochlear implantCompound action potentialCortical auditory evoked potentialHearing outcome