Literature DB >> 18722221

Residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation: comparison between straight and perimodiolar implants.

Antonio Soda-Merhy1, Leonardo Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Carmen Tirado-Gutierrez.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Investigate whether perimodiolar cochlear implants provide a better preservation of residual hearing than straight implants. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Longitudinal, observational, and comparative study in tertiary center in Mexico City. Forty-eight patients who underwent cochlear implant surgery were included and were divided into two groups depending on whether they received a straight or a perimodiolar implant. The residual hearing of the operated ear was measured audiometrically before and after surgery. Variables analyzed were pure-tone average threshold at 125, 250, and 500 Hz and residual hearing at frequencies from 125 to 8000 Hz. Residual hearing was considered as preserved when audiometric changes were less than 10 dB HL in each variable.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the preservation of residual hearing between the two groups or between individual devices (P>0.05 in all variables).
CONCLUSION: Straight and perimodiolar cochlear implants seem to preserve residual hearing at similar rates across frequencies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18722221     DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  6 in total

Review 1.  Soft cochlear implantation: rationale for the surgical approach.

Authors:  David R Friedland; Christina Runge-Samuelson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Radiological evaluation of a new straight electrode array compared to its precursors.

Authors:  Manuel Christoph Ketterer; A Aschendorff; S Arndt; I Speck; A K Rauch; R Beck; F Hassepass
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  The influence of Slim Modiolar electrode on residual hearing in pediatric patients.

Authors:  Karolina Haber; Alexandra Neagu; Wiesław Konopka; Katarzyna Amernik; Dan Cristian Gheorghe; Maria Drela; Iwona Wrukowska-Niemczewska; Józef Mierzwiński
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Cochlear Implants in Subjects Over Age 65: Quality of Life and Audiological Outcomes.

Authors:  Claudia Aimoni; Andrea Ciorba; Stavros Hatzopoulos; Giulia Ramacciotti; Manuela Mazzoli; Chiara Bianchini; Monica Rosignoli; Henryk Skarżyński; Piotr H Skarżyński
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-08-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.