Presented at the 4th Triological Congress of Otorhinolaryngology, Brazilian Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Association, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, November 13, 2005.
Summating Potential-Action Potential Waveform Amplitude and Width in the Diagnosis of Menière's Disease†
Article first published online: 2 JAN 2009
Copyright © 2006 The Triological Society
Volume 116, Issue 10, pages 1766–1769, October 2006
How to Cite
Ikino, C. M. Y. and de Almeida, E. R. (2006), Summating Potential-Action Potential Waveform Amplitude and Width in the Diagnosis of Menière's Disease. The Laryngoscope, 116: 1766–1769. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000227976.43352.61
- Issue published online: 2 JAN 2009
- Article first published online: 2 JAN 2009
- Manuscript Accepted: 2 MAY 2006
- evoked response;
- Menière's disease;
- endolymphatic hydrops
Objectives: It has been suggested that analyzing the width and amplitude of the summating potential-action potential (SP-AP) waveforms can increase the sensitivity of electrocochleography. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ratio of SP to AP amplitude (SP/AP) and SP-AP waveform width, as well as the AP latency difference to condensation and rarefaction clicks, for the diagnosis of Menière's disease.
Study Design: This was a prospective, controlled study.
Methods: We used transtympanic electrocochleography to evaluate 21 patients with definite Menière's disease and 19 normal-hearing patients with other cochleovestibular disorders, comparing SP/AP, AP latency difference, and SP-AP waveform widths as well as calculating the diagnostic sensitivity of these parameters.
Results: Mean SP-AP waveform width was 1.89 ms in the study group and 1.58 ms in the control group. Mean SP/AP was 0.37 in the study group and 0.22 in the control group. The mean product of SP-AP waveform width and SP/AP was 75.26 ms% in the study group and 34.60 ms% in the control group. Mean AP latency difference was 0.13 ms in the study group and 0.07 ms in the control group. For the parameters evaluated, the differences between the groups were statistically significant. In the study group, the sensitivities for the width of the SP-AP waveform, the SP/AP, and the AP latency difference were 33.3%, 52.4%, and 23.8%, respectively.
Conclusions: The use of the parameters evaluated did not increase the sensitivity of the electrocochleography, whether used in isolation or in conjunction with the SP/AP. Determining SP/AP presented the greatest sensitivity.