Literature DB >> 12851551

Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children with ossified cochleae.

Hussam K El-Kashlan1, Carissa Ashbaugh, Teresa Zwolan, Steven A Telian.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects that degree of cochlear ossification has on performance of prelingually deafened children who receive cochlear implants. STUDY
DESIGN: A matched-pairs analysis comparing speech perception results obtained 6 and 24 months after implant by children with ossified and nonossified cochleae. Additionally, long-term performance was evaluated in patients with follow-up periods longer than 24 months. Comparisons were also performed within the ossified cochleae group to determine if degree of cochlear ossification and surgical technique affected outcome with the cochlear implant. SETTING Large cochlear implant program in an academic tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-one pairs of prelingually deaf children with and without cochlear ossification. Meningitis was the etiology of hearing loss in children with ossified cochleae. The control group had nonmeningitic etiology for the hearing loss.
INTERVENTIONS: Multichannel cochlear implantation and routine postoperative auditory rehabilitation and performance evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech perception category ratings based on scores obtained on a battery of closed- and open-set speech recognition tests 6 and 24 months after implant. Longer follow-up period is also reported.
RESULTS: As a group, children with cochlear ossification showed significant improvement in their speech perception abilities 6 and 24 months after implant. Children with cochlear ossification performed at a significantly lower speech perception category than a group of matched controls with nonossified cochleae at both the 6- and 24-month postimplant intervals. With longer implant use, open-set speech recognition was possible in some children with ossification. Within-group analysis of the children with ossified cochleae revealed that degree of ossification and surgical procedure used for implantation did not significantly affect outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Prelingually deafened children with postmeningitic hearing loss and ossified cochleae receive significant benefit from cochlear implants. Their performance is frequently poorer, however, than children with nonossified cochleae.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12851551     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200307000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  16 in total

1.  Primary auditory cortical responses to electrical stimulation of the thalamus.

Authors:  Craig A Atencio; Jonathan Y Shih; Christoph E Schreiner; Steven W Cheung
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Auditory rehabilitation of patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2 by using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Pamela C Roehm; Jon Mallen-St Clair; Daniel Jethanamest; John G Golfinos; William Shapiro; Susan Waltzman; J Thomas Roland
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 5.115

3.  Cochlear Patency after Translabyrinthine and Retrosigmoid Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery.

Authors:  Huibert Frans van Waegeningh; Elke Loos; Tony Van Havenbergh; Thomas Somers
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.017

4.  Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Post-Meningitis Deafness: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Authors:  Kaajal Singhal; Juhi Singhal; Jameel Muzaffar; Peter Monksfield; Manohar Bance
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.017

5.  New cochlear implant technologies improve performance in post-meningitic deaf patients.

Authors:  Isabelle Mosnier; Andrea Felice; Gonzalo Esquia; Stéphanie Borel; Didier Bouccara; Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan; Martine Smadja; Evelyne Ferrary; Olivier Sterkers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Early prediction of postmeningitic hearing loss in children using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jonathan C Kopelovich; John A Germiller; Adrienne M Laury; Samir S Shah; Avrum N Pollock
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-02-21

7.  Outcome of cochlear implantation in post-meningitis deaf children.

Authors:  Mahdiyeh Hasanalifard; Mohammad Ajalloueyan; Susan Amirsalari; Amin Saburi
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 0.611

8.  Audiological performance in cochlear implanted patients deafened by meningitis depending on duration of deafness.

Authors:  M Durisin; C Arnoldner; T Stöver; T Lenarz; A Lesinski-Schiedat
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-02-02       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Cochlear implantation after bacterial meningitis in infants younger than 9 months.

Authors:  B Y Roukema; M C Van Loon; C Smits; C F Smit; S T Goverts; P Merkus; E F Hensen
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-20

10.  Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Meningitis, Is it Mandatory? A Case Report.

Authors:  Mohammad Ajalloueyan; Susan Amirsalari; Shahla Afsharpeyman
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 0.611

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.