Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Buchman, Craig A.
• Joy, Jennifer
• Hodges, Annelle
• Telischi, Fred F.
• Balkany, Thomas J.

Titel

Vestibular Effects of Cochlear Implantation

Ist Teil von

• The Laryngoscope, 2004-10, Vol.114 (S103), p.1-22

Ort / Verlag

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2004

Quelle

Access via Wiley Online Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objectives/Hypothesis: Cochlear implantation (CI) carries with it the potential risk for vestibular system insult or stimulation with resultant dysfunction. As candidate profiles continue to evolve and with the recent development of bilateral CI, understanding the significance of this risk takes on an increasing importance. Study Design: Between 1997 to 2001, a prospective observational study was carried out in a tertiary care medical center to assess the effects of unilateral CI on the vestibular system. Methods: Assessment was performed using the dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), vestibulo‐ocular reflex (VOR) testing using both alternate bithermal caloric irrigations (ENG) and rotational chair‐generated sinusoidal harmonic accelerations (SHA), and computerized dynamic platform posturography (CDP) at preoperative, 1‐month, 4‐month, 1‐year and 2‐year postimplantation visits. CI was carried out without respect to the preoperative vestibular function test results. Results: Specifically, 86 patients were entered into the study after informed consent. For the group as a whole, pair wise comparisons revealed few significant differences between preoperative and postoperative values for VOR testing (ENG and SHA) at any of the follow‐up intervals. Likewise, DHI testing was also unchanged except for significant reductions (improvements) in the emotional subcategory scores at both the 4‐month and 1‐year intervals. CDP results demonstrated substantial improvements in postural sway in the vestibular conditions (5 and 6) as well as composite scores with the device “off” and “on” at the 1‐month, 4‐month, 1‐year, and 2‐year intervals. Device activation appeared to improve postural stability in some conditions. Excluding those patients with preoperative areflexic or hyporeflexic responses in the implanted ear (total [warm + cool] caloric response ≤ 15 deg/s), substantial reductions (≥21 deg/s maximum slow phase velocity) in total caloric response were observed for 8 (29%) patients at the 4‐month interval. These persisted throughout the study period. These changes were accompanied by significant low frequency phase changes on SHA testing confirming a VOR insult. Of interest, no significant changes were detected in the DHI or CDP, and there were no effects of age, sex, device manufacturer, or etiology of hearing loss (HL) for these patients. Conclusions: Unilateral CI rarely results in significant adverse effects on the vestibular system as measured by the DHI, ENG, SHA, and CDP. On the contrary, patients that underwent CI experienced significant improvements in the objective measures of postural stability as measured by CDP. Device activation in music appeared to have an additional positive effect on postural stability during CDP testing. Although VOR testing demonstrated some decreases in response, patients did not suffer from disabling vestibular effects following CI. The mechanism underlying these findings remains speculative. These findings should be considered in counseling patients about CI.