Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan-Feb;83(1):16-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.01.002. Epub 2016 Mar 31.

Hearing performance as a predictor of postural recovery in cochlear implant users

Mario Edvin Greters  1 , Roseli Saraiva Moreira Bittar  2 , Signe Schuster Grasel  3 , Jeanne Oiticica  3 , Ricardo Ferreira Bento  3
Affiliations

Hearing performance as a predictor of postural recovery in cochlear implant users

Mario Edvin Greters et al. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jan-Feb.

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate if hearing performance is a predictor of postural control in cochlear implant (CI) users at least six months after surgery.

Methods: Cross-sectional study including (CI) recipients with post-lingual deafness and controls who were divided into the following groups: nine CI users with good hearing performance (G+), five CI users with poor hearing performance (G-), and seven controls (CG). For each patient, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) tests, a sensory organization test (SOT), and an adaptation test (ADT) were applied as dual task performance, with first test (FT) and re-test (RT) on the same day, including a 40-60min interval between them to evaluate the short-term learning ability on postural recovery strategies. The results of the groups were compared.

Results: Comparing the dual task performance on CDP and the weighted average between all test conditions, the G+ group showed better performance on RT in SOT4, SOT5, SOT6, and CS, which was not observed for G- and CG. The G- group had significantly lower levels of short-term learning ability than the other two groups in SOT5 (p=0.021), SOT6 (p=0.025), and CS (p=0.031).

Conclusion: The CI users with good hearing performance had a higher index of postural recovery when compared to CI users with poor hearing performance.

Objetivo: O presente estudo teve por objetivo avaliar se o desempenho auditivo é preditor de controle postural em usuários de IC pelo menos 6 meses após a cirurgia.

Método: Estudo transversal consistindo em recipientes de implante coclear (IC) com surdez pós-lingual e controles, que foram divididos nos seguintes grupos: nove usuários de IC com bom desempenho auditivo (G+), cinco usuários de usuários de IC com desempenho auditivo insatisfatório (G-) e sete controles (GC). Aplicamos o teste de posturografia dinâmica computadorizada (PDC), teste de organização sensitiva (TOS) e teste de adaptação (TAd) como desempenho de dupla tarefa, primeiro teste (PT) e reteste (RT) no mesmo dia, com intervalo de 40-60 minutos entre testes, com o objetivo de avaliar a capacidade de aprendizado em curto prazo nas estratégias de recuperação postural. Comparamos os resultados dos testes.

Resultados: Comparando o desempenho de dupla tarefa no teste PDC e a média ponderal entre todas as condições de teste, o grupo G+ demonstrou melhor desempenho no RT nos TOS4, TOS5, TOS6 e EC, o que não foi observado para os grupos G- e GC. O grupo G- obteve níveis significantemente mais baixos de capacidade de aprendizado em curto prazo vs. outros dois grupos no TOS5 (p = 0,021), TOS6 (p = 0,025) e EC (p = 0,031).

Conclusão: Usuários de IC com bom desempenho auditivo tiveram índice melhor de recuperação postural, quando comparados a usuários de IC com desempenho auditivo insatisfatório.

Keywords: Auditory evoked potentials; Balance; Cochlear implant; Dizziness; Equilíbrio; Hearing loss; Implante coclear; Perda auditiva; Posturografia; Posturography; Potenciais evocados auditivos; Tontura.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Anderson G., Hagman J., Talianzadeh R., Svedberg A., Larsen H.C. Effect of cognitive load on postural control. Brain Res Bull. 2002;58:135–139. - PubMed
    1. Schmidt H., Heimann B., Djukic M., Mazurek C., Fels C., Wallesch C.W., et al. Neuropsychological sequelae of bacterial and viral meningitis. Brain. 2006;129(Pt 2):333–345. - PubMed
    1. Jacobson G.P., Newman C.W., Kartush J.M. Mosby Year Book; St Louis: 1993. Handbook of balance function testing.
    1. Jahn K., Wagner J., Deutschländer A., Kalla R., Hüfner K., Stephan T., et al. Human hippocampal activation during stance and locomotion: fMRI study on healthy, blind, and vestibular-loss subjects. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1164:229–235. - PubMed
    1. Jones G.M. In: Principles of neural science. 4th ed. Kandel E.R., Schwartz J.H., Jessell T., editors. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY: 2000. Posture; pp. 816–831.