Literature DB >> 17333229

Residual hearing in cochlear implant patients.

Walter Di Nardo1, Italo Cantore, Pietro Melillo, Francesca Cianfrone, Alessandro Scorpecci, Gaetano Paludetti.   

Abstract

Preservation of residual hearing should be a desirable outcome of implant surgery. Prevention of neural degeneration due to loss of residual hair cells, together with the continuous progress in cochlear implant technology should be able to preserve cochlear integrity as well as possible. The degree of hearing preservation may vary depending on surgical approach, maximum insertion depth and other factors not uniformly considered to date. The aim of this retrospective case controlled study is to evaluate residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery. In particular, we analyzed data obtained with use of two different kinds of electrode arrays, with and without rigid introductor (stylet). We report the results on 37 patients with measurable preoperative hearing thresholds, mean age of 28 years (5-70 years), having the following implants: seven Advanced Bionics, four Med-El, 24 Cochlear, two MXM; 19 of them were performed using the stylet and the other 18 without it. A minimally invasive surgical approach was performed with a short retroauricular incision and a 1.2 mm cochleostomy. A complete electrode array insertion was obtained in all patients. Responses to pure-tone stimuli were measured for each ear in pre-implantation conditions and 3-12 months after surgery. After implantation 14 patients (38%) showed no hearing threshold variation, 29 (78%) maintained an appreciable hearing threshold level in the implanted ear, 8 (22%) had a total loss of residual hearing. Median increases of threshold levels were, in all 37 studied patients, 5, 10, 10 and 5 dB HL, respectively, for 125, 250, 500 and 1 kHz. For the 18 patients having implants without the stylet median increases of threshold levels were 0, 10, 5 and 7 dB HL; in the stylet group, they were 10, 5, 5 and 10 dB HL. On a comparison between the stylet and the non-stylet group, no significant differences in mean hearing threshold worsening were found. Data seem to suggest that cochlear function is less sensitive to mechanical trauma during implant surgery than was thought. Besides, electrode array stiffness seems not to influence preservation of cochlear residual functional integrity. Finally, the authors hypothesize a direct spiral ganglion activation under strong mechanical stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17333229     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-007-0270-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  15 in total

1.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jan Kiefer; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Wolfgang Baumgartner; Stephan Marcel Pok; Jochen Tillein; Qing Ye; Christoph von Ilberg
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.494

2.  Effect of cochlear implantation on residual spiral ganglion cell count as determined by comparison with the contralateral nonimplanted inner ear in humans.

Authors:  Aayesha M Khan; Ophir Handzel; Doris Damian; Donald K Eddington; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.547

3.  Cochlear implant soft surgery: fact or fantasy?

Authors:  N L Cohen
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.497

4.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why.

Authors:  Chris James; Klaus Albegger; Rolf Battmer; Sandro Burdo; Naima Deggouj; Olivier Deguine; Norbert Dillier; Michel Gersdorff; Roland Laszig; Thomas Lenarz; Manuel Manrique Rodriguez; Michel Mondain; Erwin Offeciers; Angel Ramos Macías; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Sterkers; Ernst Von Wallenberg; Benno Weber; Bernard Fraysse
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.494

5.  [Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique].

Authors:  E Lehnhardt
Journal:  HNO       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Stapedectomy versus stapedotomy: comparison of results with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Howard P House; Marlan R Hansen; Abdul Aziz A Al Dakhail; John W House
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Preservation of residual hearing in children and post-lingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: an initial study.

Authors:  Henryk Skarzyński; Artur Lorens; Patrick D'Haese; Adam Walkowiak; Anna Piotrowska; Lech Sliwa; Ilona Anderson
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.538

8.  Cochlear endoscopy with preservation of hearing in guinea pigs.

Authors:  T Balkany; A V Hodges; M Whitehead; F Memari; G K Martin
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Wolfgang Gstoettner; Jan Kiefer; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Stefan Pok; Silke Peters; Oliver Adunka
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation.

Authors:  A V Hodges; J Schloffman; T Balkany
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-03
View more
  9 in total

1.  Residual hearing preservation after pediatric cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Ryan F Brown; Timothy E Hullar; Jamie H Cadieux; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Combined posterior tympanotomy/endomeatal access in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Antonio Della Volpe; Italo Cantore; Gerardo Nolè; Paola Valente; Alfonso Maria Varricchio; Michela Santandrea; Valentina Santandrea; Rocco Cantore
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Justin T Fleming; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 2.482

4.  Polypyrrole-coated electrodes for the delivery of charge and neurotrophins to cochlear neurons.

Authors:  Rachael T Richardson; Andrew K Wise; Brianna C Thompson; Brianna O Flynn; Patrick J Atkinson; Nicole J Fretwell; James B Fallon; Gordon G Wallace; Rob K Shepherd; Graeme M Clark; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 12.479

5.  Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance?

Authors:  J T F Postelmans; R J Stokroos; E van Spronsen; W Grolman; R A Tange; M J Maré; Wouter Albert Dreschler
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Joshua Kuang-Chao Chen; Ann Yi-Chiun Chuang; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Tao-Hsin Tung; Lieber Po-Hung Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Priscila Carvalho Miranda; André Luiz Lopes Sampaio; Rafaela Aquino Fernandes Lopes; Alessandra Ramos Venosa; Carlos Augusto Costa Pires de Oliveira
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-03

Review 8.  Factors affecting residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  D Zanetti; N Nassif; L O Redaelli de Zinis
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.124

9.  Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery: an exploration of residual hearing function in a group of recipients at cochlear implant units.

Authors:  Katherine Gautschi-Mills; Katijah Khoza-Shangase; Dhanashree Pillay
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-03-24
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.