OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the TM-ECochG results obtained when the electrode was placed on the superior region versus the inferior region of TM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty healthy adults (aged 29 to 50 years) participated in this comparative study. The TM-ECochG testing was conducted with the electrode placed on the superior and inferior regions of TM.
RESULTS: SP and AP amplitudes were statistically higher for the inferior region of TM (p < .05). In contrast, SP/AP ratios were comparable between the two regions of TM (p = .417).
CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: In TM-ECochG recording, when the electrode was placed on the inferior region of TM, SP and AP amplitudes were greater than when the electrode was placed on the superior region of TM. On the other hand, SP/AP amplitude ratio was not affected by the location of electrode on TM. The findings from the present study could be useful to guide clinicians in optimizing TM-ECochG recording when testing their respective patients.
METHODS: A single-blinded placebo-controlled trial of surgical intervention triggered when CM amplitude dropped by at least 30% of a prior maximum amplitude during cochlear implantation. Intraoperative electrocochleography was recorded in 60 adults implanted with Cochlear Ltd's Thin Straight Electrode, half randomly assigned to a control group and half to an interventional group. The surgical intervention was to withdraw the electrode in ½-mm steps to recover CM amplitude. The primary outcome was hearing preservation 3 months following implantation, with secondary outcomes of speech-in-noise reception thresholds by group or CM outcome, and depth of implantation.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were recruited; neither pre-operative audiometry nor speech reception thresholds were significantly different between groups. Post-operatively, hearing preservation was significantly better in the interventional group. This was the case in absolute difference (median of 30 dB for control, 20 dB for interventional, χ² = 6.2, p = .013), as well as for relative difference (medians of 66% for the control, 31% for the interventional, χ² = 5.9, p = .015). Speech-in-noise reception thresholds were significantly better in patients with no CM drop at any point during insertion compared with patients with a CM drop; however, those with successfully recovered CMs after an initial drop were not significantly different (median gain required for speech reception score of 50% above noise of 6.9 dB for no drop, 8.6 for recovered CM, and 9.8 for CM drop, χ² = 6.8, p = .032). Angular insertion depth was not significantly different between control and interventional groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first demonstration that surgical intervention in response to intraoperative hearing monitoring can save residual hearing during cochlear implantation.
OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) as first screening tool among non-risk newborns in a hospital with high delivery rate.
METHOD: A total of 722 non-risk newborns (1444 ears) were screened with both DPOAE and AABR prior to discharge within one month. Babies who failed AABR were rescreened with AABR ± diagnostic auditory brainstem response tests within one month of age.
RESULTS: The pass rate for AABR (67.9%) was higher than DPOAE (50.1%). Both DPOAE and AABR pass rates improved significantly with increasing age (p-value<0.001). The highest pass rate for both DPOAE and AABR were between the age of 36-48 h, 73.1% and 84.2% respectively. The mean testing time for AABR (13.54 min ± 7.47) was significantly longer than DPOAE (3.52 min ± 1.87), with a p-value of <0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: OAE test is faster and easier than AABR, but with higher false positive rate. The most ideal hearing screening protocol should be tailored according to different centre.