RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAP) and electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses (EABR) in children with cochlear implants (CI) without inner ear anomalies. METHODS: Sixteen children between the ages of two and six years who were CI users participated in the study. ECAP thresholds were recorded from one electrode in the basal, medial, and apical regions of the cochlear implant. EABRs were recorded from electrodes whose ECAP thresholds were determined. The latency-intensity functions, amplitude and morphological analyzes of the eIII and eV waves at 200 and 180 current unit (CU) excitation levels were performed. The data obtained were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: ECAP thresholds were found to be 171.5±11.38, 169.69±20.32 and 160.81±20.03 CU at the basal, medial and apical electrodes, respectively. EABR thresholds were also found to be 169.69±12.17, 165.62±16.41 and 160±15.49 CU in basal, medial and apical electrodes, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between ECAP and EABR thresholds in apical, medial and basal electrodes (p<0.05). EABR threshold levels were not significantly different between basal, medial and apical region electrodes (p>0.05), and ECAP threshold values were significantly different between apical and basal region electrodes (p=0.002). When the significance values of EABR eV wave latencies were analyzed in terms of electrode region, the difference between basal and apical regions was found to be significant (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Consistency was found between ECAP and EABR recordings. However, it was concluded that one could not be preferred over the other because the data quality of the two tests was different. In future studies, ECAP and EABR recordings may be recommended by selecting more electrodes for stimulation.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficiency of the DoctorVox Voice Therapy Technique using high back-pressure on mutational falsetto. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 21 men with mutational falsetto and 25 age-matched healthy men were included. All patients received DoctorVox voice therapy using the doctorVOX device with high back-pressure. Ear nose and throat examination, videolaryngostroboscopy, and acoustic (SPL, mean F0, first three formants, jitter%, shimmer%, and NHR) and electroglottographic analysis (Closed Quotient and Contact Index) were performed at pretreatment, and at 1 and 6 months after treatment. The VHI-10 and the GRBAS scales were used for perceptual voice evaluation. RESULTS: Compared with the pretreatment values, the first and sixth month values after treatment demonstrated a significant decrease inVHI-10, GRBAS, F0, F1, F2, F3, Jitt %, Shimm %, NHR, and contact index and a significant increase in closed quotient among MF patients. In the sixth month after treatment, VHI-10, jitt%, and NHR parameters were significantly lower than those of the first month. The first-month data for VHI-10, jitt%, and NHR values was significantly higher than that of the control group, while there was no significant difference between the sixth-month data and that of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The DoctorVox Voice Therapy Technique is highly effective in mutational falsetto treatment. At the first session, the patients reach a lower fundamental frequency in the chest register; by the 1 month after treatment, they have a normal pitch at speaking. The improvement in perturbation measures may continue for 6 months. Patients should be followed up regularly for at least 6 months after treatment to obtain optimum treatment outcomes.
