247

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE OF CI USERS USING MIDDLE AND LATE LATENCY RESPONSES

Murat Kurnaz, Bulent Satar, Serdar Karahatay, Hakan Birkent, Abdullah Durmaz, Sertac Yetiser

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implantation may not provide enough auditory perception for patients who have been implanted because of congenital or acquired profound hearing loss. Plasticity of the central auditory pathway is accused most of the time besides spiral ganglion survival. Some auditory evoked potentials (MLR and LLR) may be used in advance for detecting the patients who would not have enough performance postoperatively. This would provide more precisecandidate selection preoperatively.

METHODS: This study was performed in 10 prelingual and 6 postlingual cochlear implant patients with the age ranging from 6 to 48 (mean 19.7±15.7). The following criteria were sought for inclusion: 1)to have successfully inserted 15 electrodes at least and 2) to complete postoperative 3rd month follow-up period at least.3) to be cooperative for performing the tests. All implanted patients had auditory perception and linguistic development tests pre- and postoperatively, MLR and LLR testing postoperatively. MLR and LLR testing were performed consecutively at the same session. All patients were given 80 dB acoustic click stimulus, and MLR’s and LLR’s were recorded. Ten healthy subjects with no hearing and balance problem were also included into the study as a control group. MLR’s and LLR’s tests were recorded. Latencies and amplitudes of MLR and LLR were measured. Patients were divided into groups based on onset of hearing loss (prelingual and postlingual), and also auditory performance (good and moderate). Latency and amplitude of potentials were compared among the prelingual and postlingual cochlear implant patients and the control group. The same parameters were compared among the patients with good and poor auditory performance scores and the control group.

RESULTS: Latency of MLR and LLR was found to be shorter in postlingually deaf implantees compared to prelingually deaf implantees. Amplitude of MLR and LLR tended to be higher in postlingually deaf implantees compared to prelingually deaf implantees. The better postoperative performance was associated with shorter latency and higher amplitude of MLR and LLR.

CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to conclude that postoperative auditory evoked potantials may give some clues about postoperative performance of CI users. Therefore, preoperative electrically evoked-MLR and LLR may be used to select appropriate candidates.