Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring - When is change in wave V significant?

被引:44
作者
James, ML
Husain, AM
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Neurodiagnost Ctr, Durham, NC USA
关键词
D O I
10.1212/01.wnl.0000184481.75412.2b
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The probability of hearing loss during cerebellopontine angle ( CPA) surgery can be reduced by using brainstem auditory evoked potential ( BAEP) intraoperative monitoring ( IOM). A wave V latency prolongation of 1.0 milliseconds or amplitude decrement of greater than 50% is arbitrarily considered the point when damage to hearing occurs. Objective: To determine the accuracy of wave V changes in predicting hearing impairment. Methods: Patients undergoing BAEP IOM for surgery in the CPA region were evaluated. The greatest wave V latency and amplitude change was determined. Patients were divided into four groups depending on degree of change of wave V: Group 1 consisted of minimal change, whereas Group 4 was permanent loss of wave V. The frequency of hearing loss in each group was compared. Results: Data from 156 patients were reviewed. When all patients were analyzed, the frequency of hearing loss was not significantly different between the groups. When patients with CPA tumor were excluded, a significantly higher number of patients in Group 4 had hearing loss. Analysis of the patients with CPA tumor showed no difference in the frequency of hearing loss in any of the groups; even a large number ( 50%) of Group 1 patients had hearing impairment. Conclusions: During brainstem auditory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring, the type of surgery is important when interpreting significance of changes of wave V. For non - cerebellopontine angle tumor surgery, hearing loss occurs usually only with permanent loss of wave V; much smaller changes may be important in cerebellopontine angle tumor surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:1551 / 1555
页数:5
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Microvascular decompression for the treatment of hemifacial spasm retrospective study of a consecutive series of 75 operated patients - Electrophysiologic and anatomical surgical analysis [J].
Acevedo, JC ;
Sindou, M ;
Fischer, C ;
Vial, C .
STEREOTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROSURGERY, 1997, 68 (1-4) :260-265
[2]  
Angelo R, 1996, NEUROL RES, V18, P528
[3]   Evaluation of three intraoperative auditory monitoring techniques in acoustic neuroma surgery [J].
Battista, RA ;
Wiet, RJ ;
Paauwe, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY, 2000, 21 (02) :244-248
[4]   Hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma surgery [J].
Browning, S ;
Mohr, G ;
Dufour, JJ ;
Rappaport, JM ;
Zeitouni, A ;
Provencal, C ;
Hernandes, Y ;
Surkis, S ;
Druker, S ;
Davis, NL .
JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2001, 30 (05) :307-315
[5]  
Colletti V, 1998, AUDIOLOGY, V37, P27
[6]  
ERWIN AC, 2003, CURRENT PRACTICE CLI, P864
[7]  
ERWIN CW, 1995, PRIMER INTRAOPERATIV, P135
[8]   HEARING PRESERVATION IN UNILATERAL ACOUSTIC NEUROMA SURGERY [J].
GARDNER, G ;
ROBERTSON, JH .
ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY, 1988, 97 (01) :55-66
[9]   INTRA-OPERATIVE MONITORING OF BRAIN-STEM AUDITORY EVOKED-POTENTIALS [J].
GRUNDY, BL ;
JANNETTA, PJ ;
PROCOPIO, PT ;
LINA, A ;
BOSTON, JR ;
DOYLE, E .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1982, 57 (05) :674-681
[10]  
Harner SG, 1996, AM J OTOL, V17, P150