Literature DB >> 16891842

Auditory outcomes in tumor vs. nontumor patients fitted with auditory brainstem implants.

Vittorio Colletti1.   

Abstract

Auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) are currently indicated for patients older than 12 years with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) who had bilateral schwannoma removed. Over the last 10 years, we have extended the indications for ABIs to nontumor children and adult patients with cochlear or cochlear nerve injuries or malfunctions who would not benefit from a cochlear implant. We have provided ABIs for patients with cochlear nerve aplasia and other injuries, and patients in whom any benefit was, or would be, severely compromised as in extensive cochlear ossification. In the present chapter we report our recent findings in adult ABI patients and compare the psychophysical and speech perception outcomes in tumor with those in nontumor patients. We demonstrate that the ABI can stimulate the central auditory system in a way that gives the ability of open set speech understanding, and can thus be indicated in nontumor adult patients who are not candidates for a cochlear implant. From April 1997 to January 2006, a total of 80 patients, 62 adults and 18 children, were fitted with ABIs in the University of Verona ENT Department; age ranged from 14 months to 70 years. Twenty-six patients had NF2 with bilateral vestibular schwannoma removal, and 54 had nontumor diseases of the cochlear nerve or cochlea. The retrosigmoid approach was used in all patients. All patients had a functioning implantation, and no complications were observed during the operation, activation as well as long-term use of the ABI. All patients, except 1 (NF2), reported auditory sensations with activation of various numbers of electrodes (from 5 to 21). Different electrodes elicited different pitch sensations. At 1 year after implantations nontumor adults scored from 12 to 100% in open set speech perception tests (average 59%), and tumor (NF2) patients scored from 5 to 30% (average of 11%). The differences between these results are statistically significantly (p < 0.01). To investigate the cause of the differences in performance between tumor and nontumor ABI recipients, a series of psychophysical tests were done consecutively in 39 adult patients with implants (25 nontumor and 14 tumor patients) from May 1999 to April 2004 and with a follow-up of at least 1 year. The outcome of this study shows that: (1) The ABIs allow most tumor and nontumor patients to experience improved communication as well as awareness of environmental sounds. (2) Nontumor patients had better hearing outcomes than tumor patients when the variation in the auditory benefit with the ABI in relation to the patient's underlying pathological conditions were taken into consideration. (3) A significant number of nontumor patients are able understand speech at a level comparable to that of the most successful cochlear implant users including conversational telephone use. (4) The ABI represents the tool for hearing rehabilitation in patients with profound hearing loss who cannot be fitted with cochlear implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16891842     DOI: 10.1159/000094651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0065-3071


  15 in total

Review 1.  Future approaches for inner ear protection and repair.

Authors:  Seiji B Shibata; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.288

2.  Diagnosis and Management of Congenital Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Michelle M Chen; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Pediatr       Date:  2016-07-08

Review 3.  Auditory midbrain implant: a review.

Authors:  Hubert H Lim; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-09

4.  Retrosigmoid Craniotomy for Auditory Brainstem Implantation in Adult Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 2.

Authors:  Sidharth V Puram; Barbara Herrmann; Fred G Barker; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2015-06-12

5.  Polydimethylsiloxane-based optical waveguides for tetherless powering of floating microstimulators.

Authors:  Ali Ersen; Mesut Sahin
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 3.170

6.  Initial Results of a Safety and Feasibility Study of Auditory Brainstem Implantation in Congenitally Deaf Children.

Authors:  Eric P Wilkinson; Laurie S Eisenberg; Mark D Krieger; Marc S Schwartz; Margaret Winter; Jamie L Glater; Amy S Martinez; Laurel M Fisher; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Auditory Brainstem Implant Array Position Varies Widely Among Adult and Pediatric Patients and Is Associated With Perception.

Authors:  Samuel R Barber; Elliott D Kozin; Aaron K Remenschneider; Sidharth V Puram; Max Smith; Barbara S Herrmann; Mary E Cunnane; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Auditory and audio-visual processing in patients with cochlear, auditory brainstem, and auditory midbrain implants: An EEG study.

Authors:  Irina Schierholz; Mareike Finke; Andrej Kral; Andreas Büchner; Stefan Rach; Thomas Lenarz; Reinhard Dengler; Pascale Sandmann
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-01-28       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 9.  Advances in auditory prostheses.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.710

Review 10.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.