These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Differences between electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and behavioral measures in children with cochlear implants operated in the school age vs. operated in the first years of life.
    Author: Vlahović S, Šindija B, Aras I, Glunčić M, Trotić R.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2012 May; 76(5):731-9. PubMed ID: 22398117.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the differences in the NRT measures, behavioral measures, and their relationship between the group of congenitally deaf children operated in the first years of life and the group of children operated in the school age. METHODS: The study included 40 congenitally deaf children with cochlear implants divided into two groups. Group 1 was composed of 20 children (mean age at operation 2.3 years, range 1.4-4.6 years) and Group 2 was composed of 20 children (mean age at operation 11.3 years, range 7.0-17.1 years). The ECAP was recorded using the Nucleus 24 neural response telemetry (NRT) system. In each child, the responses were evoked by the apical, middle and basal electrodes. The analyzed parameters were: the ECAP threshold (T-NRT), N1P2 amplitude, N1 latency, slope of the amplitude growth function, response morphology, threshold (T-) level, maximum comfort (C-) level, dynamic range (DR), T-NRT as a percentage of the map DR, the correlation between the T-NRT and the T- and C-levels. The recordings of parameters were performed two years after implantations. RESULTS: The T-NRT, DR, T-NRT as a percentage of the map DR and the correlation between T-NRT and C-levels were significantly different between both groups of children. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to the amplitude, latency, slope and morphology recorded using the same electrodes. However, intragroup differences regarding NRT measures and behavioral measures with respect to the position of stimulating electrode were more prominent in Group 2 than in the Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study have also found a great variability of NRT and MAP measures within and across patients in both groups of children, but it was still more pronounced in the group of school children. NRT profile across electrodes follows MAP profiles better in the Group 1 then in the Group 2. Overall findings of NRT and MAP measures are not consistent and unambiguous as we expected, but still suggest potential differences between results in children operated in first years of life, and those operated in school age.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]