The Value of Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex in Determining the Maximum Comfort Level of a Cochlear Implant

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

One of the most important steps for good user performance with a cochlear implant (CI) is activation and programming, aimed at determining the dynamic range. In adults, current levels are determined by psychophysical measures. In babies, small children, or individuals with multiple disorders, this procedure requires techniques that may provide inconsistent responses because of auditory inexperience or the age of the child, making it a very difficult process that demands the collaboration of both the patient and the family.

Purpose:

To study the relationship between the electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold (ESRT) and maximum comfort level for stimulating electrodes (C-level) in postoperative CI users.

Research Design:

Cross-sectional analytical observational case series study.

Study Sample:

We assessed 24 patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 68 yr, submitted to CI surgery.

Intervention:

Otoscopy and immittance. Next, an implant speech processor connected to an Itautec^® computer containing the manufacturer’s software (custom sound Ep 3–2) was used, as well as an AT 235h probe inserted into the ear contralateral to the CI to capture the stapedius reflex, obtaining electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Data from the last programming, defining C-levels for each electrode studied, were extracted from the databank of each patient. The manual decay function of the AT 235h middle ear analyzer was used to observe ESRT response in a same window for a longer response capture time. Electrodes 22, 16, 11, 6, and 1 were tested when active, with the aim of using electrodes over the entire length of the CI, and ESRT was considered present when compliance was ≥0.05 ml. Stimuli, in current units, were always initiated at 20 cu above the C-level. The analysis of variance parametric test, Tukey’s honest significant difference test, the t-test, Wilcoxon nonparametric test, and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test examined whether significant relationships existed between these other factors.

Results:

The results demonstrate that all the electrodes selected for the study exhibited higher mean reflex threshold values than their mean C-level counterparts. However, there was no significant difference between them, for electrodes 1, 6, 11, and 16. The data provided allow the use of ESRT to define C-level values and make it possible to stipulate a correction factor ranging between 6 and 25.6 electrical units.

Conclusion:

The use of electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds can help the team in charge of programming CIs, making the process faster and safer, mainly for infants, small children, or individuals with multiple disorders.

• REFERENCES

• Battmer RD, Laszig R, Lehnhardt E. 1990; Electrically elicited stapedius reflex in cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 11 (05) 370-374
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baysal E, Karatas E, Deniz M, Baglam T, Durucu C, Karatas ZA, Mumbuc S, Kanlikama M. 2012; Intra- and postoperative electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds in children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76 (05) 649-652
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergeron F, Hotton M. 2015; Comparison of eSRTs and comfort levels in users of digisonic SP cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 16 (02) 110-114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bezerra EL. 2003; Medidas de imitância acústica em idosos. Rev. CEFAC 5: 157-164
  Google Scholar
• Bresnihan M, Norman G, Scott F, Viani L. 2001; Measurement of comfort levels by means of electrical stapedial reflex in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127 (08) 963-966
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B. 1990; Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 88 (03) 1385-1391
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. 2000; The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 21 (02) 151-163
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caner G, Olgun L, Gültekin G, Balaban M. 2007; Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold. Otol Neurotol 28 (05) 637-640
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen NL, Waltzman SB, Shapiro WH. 1989; Telephone speech comprehension with use of the nucleus cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 142: 8-11
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferrari DV. 2003. A Telemetria de Respostas Neurais Para Registrar o Potencial de Ação Composto Eletricamente Evocado do Nervo Coclear em Crianças Usuárias de Implante Coclear Multicanal. 204p. Tese (Doutorado em Psicologia) - Instituto de Psicologia. Neurociências e Comportamento. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo;
  Google Scholar
• Ferrari DV. 2004; A telemetria de respostas neurais no sistema de implante coclear multicanal nucleus 24: revisão da literatura. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 70 (01) 112-118
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Gantz BJ, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ. 1994; Intraoperative measures of electrically evoked auditory nerve compound action potential. Am J Otol 15 (02) 137-144
  Google Scholar
• Gnadeberg D, Battmer RD, Lüllwitz E, Laszig R, Dybus U, Lenarz T. 1994; [Effect of anesthesia on the intraoperative elicited stapedius reflex]. Laryngorhinootologie 73 (03) 132-135
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gordon KA, Ebinger KA, Gilden JE, Shapiro WH. 2002; Neural response telemetry in 12- to 24-month-old children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 189 (189) 42-48
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. 2004; Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 25 (05) 447-463
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hodges AV, Balkany TJ, Ruth RA, Lambert PR, Dolan-Ash S, Schloffman JJ. 1997; Electrical cochlear middle ear muscle reflex: use in implant programming. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117 (03) 255-261
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hodges AV, Butts S, Dolan-Ash S, Balkany TJ. 1999; Using electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds to fit the CLARION cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 177: 64-68
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jerger J, Oliver TA, Chmiel RA. 1988; Prediction of dynamic range from stapedius reflex in cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 9 (01) 4-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lorens A, Skarzynski H, Piotrowska A, Walkowiak A, Śliwa L, Kochanek K. 2003; Objective methods of postoperative tests in cochlear implant patients. Int Congr Ser 1240: 379-383
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Mason S. 2004; Electrophysiologic and objective monitoring of the cochlear implant during surgery: implementation, audit and outcomes. Int J Audiol 43 (Suppl. 1) S33-S38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pau HW, Ehrt K, Just T, Sievert U, Dahl R. 2011; How reliable is visual assessment of the electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold during cochlear implant surgery, compared with tympanometry?. J Laryngol Otol 125 (03) 271-273
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polak M, Hodges A, Balkany T. 2005; ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 26 (04) 639-645
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruth RA, Arora NS, Gal TJ. 1982; Stapedius reflex in curarized subjects: an index of neuromuscular weakness. J Appl Physiol 52 (02) 416-420
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spivak LG, Chute PM. 1994; The relationship between electrical acoustic reflex thresholds and behavioral comfort levels in children and adult cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 15 (02) 184-192
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephan K, Welzl-Müller K. 2000; Post-operative stapedius reflex tests with simultaneous loudness scaling in patients supplied with cochlear implants. Audiology 39 (01) 13-18
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephan K, Welzl-Müller K, Stiglbrunner H. 1988; Stapedius reflex threshold in cochlear implant patients. Audiology 27 (04) 227-233
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thai-Van H, Truy E, Charasse B, Boutitie F, Chanal JM, Cochard N, Piron JP, Ribas S, Deguine O, Fraysse B, Mondain M, Uziel A, Collet L. 2004; Modeling the relationship between psychophysical perception and electrically evoked compound action potential threshold in young cochlear implant recipients: clinical implications for implant fitting. Clin Neurophysiol 115 (12) 2811-2824
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vallés H, Royo J, Lázaro A, Alfonso JI, Artal R. 2009; [Study of the relationship of stapedial reflex thresholds induced during cochlear implant surgery and the highest hearing comfort of paediatric patients]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 60 (02) 90-98
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Den Abbeele T, Noël-Petroff N, Akin I. 2012; Multicentre investigation on electrically evoked compound action potential and stapedius reflex: how do these objective measures relate to implant programming parameters?. Cochlear Implants Int 13 (01) 26-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Kostek B, Skarzynski H, Polak M. 2010; ESRT, ART, and MCL correlations in experienced paediatric cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int 11 (Suppl 1) 482-484
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Polak M, Kostek B, Skarzynski H, Szkielkowska A, Skarzynski PH. 2011; Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 73 (04) 189-195
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar