Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T19:29:14.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility of electronystagmography in the prediction of post-operative outcome following cochlear implantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

J B Spitzer ,
D Chari ,
E Machmer ,
S Lipson ,
L Rouse  and
A K Lalwani
J B Spitzer
Affiliation:
Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Bloomfield, New Jersey, USA
D Chari
Affiliation:
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
E Machmer
Affiliation:
Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA Center for Education Research Partnerships, National Technical Institute for the Deaf—Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, USA
S Lipson
Affiliation:
Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
L Rouse
Affiliation:
Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
A K Lalwani*
Affiliation:
Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Dr A K Lalwani, Columbia Cochlear Implant Programme, Division of Otology, Neurotology, and Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 180 Fort Washington Avenue, Harkness Pavilion, HP818, New York, NY 10032, USA Fax: +1 (212) 305–2249 E-mail: anil.lalwani@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To examine the relationship between pre-operative electronystagmography and videonystagmography test results and post-operative outcomes in dizziness, auditory sensitivity and speech recognition.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review was performed. Auditory sensitivity and speech perception ability were tested pre- and post-operatively in 37 adult cochlear implant recipients. Auditory sensitivity was evaluated using either pure tones (for testing with earphones) or frequency-modulated warble tones (for sound-field testing). Speech perception ability was evaluated using Northwestern University Auditory Test Number 6.

Results:

No correlation was found between pre-operative electronystagmography test results and post-operative subjective dizziness. However, pre-operative electronystagmography testing and post-operative hearing sensitivity as measured by warble tone average (dB HL) correlated significantly at six months or later after cochlear implant activation (r  ≥  −0.34, n = 34, p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

This study, which has a level of evidence 4, demonstrates that pre-operative electronystagmography testing has a potential use in predicting post-operative outcomes in hearing sensitivity following cochlear implantation. However, larger studies are needed to confirm this novel finding.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantsElectronystagmographyVestibular Function TestsCaloric TestsTreatment Outcome

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 3 , March 2015 , pp. 238 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Ito, J. Influence of the multichannel cochlear implant on vestibular function. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:900–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Steenerson, RL, Cronin, GW, Gary, LB. Vertigo after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:842–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Parmar, A, Savage, J, Wilkinson, A, Hajioff, D, Nunez, DA, Robinson, P. The role of vestibular caloric tests in cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:127–31Google Scholar
4Fina, M, Skinner, M., Goebel, JA, Piccirillo, JF, Neely, JG, Black, O. Vestibular dysfunction after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:234–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Krause, E, Wechtenbruch, J, Rader, T, Berghaus, A, Gürkov, R. Impaired fixation suppression is a risk factor for vertigo after cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:845–50Google Scholar
6Katsiari, E, Balatsouras, DG, Sengas, J, Riga, M, Korres, GS, Xenelis, J. Influence of cochlear implantation on the vestibular function. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:489–95Google Scholar
7Preferred Practice Patterns for the Profession of Audiology, 2006. American Speech Language Hearing Association. In: http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/PP2006-00274.pdf [23 July 2013]Google Scholar
8Tillman, TW, Carhart, R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words: NorthWestern University auditory test no. 6. Technical Report SAM-TDR-66–55, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, 1966Google Scholar
9Rubinstein, JT, Parkinson, RS, Tyler, RS, Gantz, BJ. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;4:445–52Google Scholar
10Van Dijk, JE, van Olphen, AF, Langereis, MC, Mens, LH, Brokx, JP, Smoorenburg, GF. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38:109–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Green, KMJ, Bhatt, YM, Mawman, DJ, O'Driscoll, MP, Saeed, SR, Ramsden, RT et al. Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int 2007;8:1–11Google Scholar
12Gleeson, M, Felix, H. A comparative study of the effect of age on the human cochlear and vestibular neuroepithelia. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1987;436:103–9Google Scholar
13Enrietto, JA, Jacobson, KM, Baloh, RW. Aging effects on auditory and vestibular responses: a longitudinal study. Am J Otolaryngol 1999;20:371–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Zuniga, MG, Dinkes, RE, Davalos-Bichara, M, Carey, JP, Schubert, MC, King, WM et al. Association between hearing loss and saccular dysfunction in older individuals. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1586–92Google Scholar
15Mock, B, Jones, TA, Jones, SM. Gravity receptor aging in the CBA/CaJ strain: a comparison to auditory aging. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011;12:173–83Google Scholar
16Jones, SM, Jones, TA, Johnson, KR, Yu, H, Erway, LC, Zheng, QY. A comparison of vestibular and auditory phenotypes in inbred mouse strains. Brain Res 2006;1091:40–6Google Scholar
17Jones, SM, Robertson, NG, Given, S, Giersch, AB, Liberman, MC, Morton, CC. Hearing and vestibular deficits in the Coch(-/-) null mouse model: comparison to the Coch(G88E/G88E) mouse and to DFNA9 hearing and balance disorder. Hear Res 2011;272:42–8Google Scholar
18Shiga, A, Nakagawa, T, Nakayama, M, Endo, T, Iguchi, F, Kim, TS et al. Aging effects on vestibulo-ocular responses in C57BL/6 mice: comparison with alteration in auditory function. Audiol Neurootol 2005;10:97–104Google Scholar