Literature DB >> 18752086

An evaluation of the preservation of residual hearing with the Nucleus Contour Advance electrode.

Luis Garcia-Ibanez1, Angel Ramos Macias, Constantino Morera, Manuel Manrique Rodriguez, Witold Szyfter, Henryk Skarszynski, Hessam Emamdjomeh, Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner.   

Abstract

CONCLUSION: Our study results confirm that it is possible to preserve preoperative hearing levels in the majority of subjects when using the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance provided that there is adherence to the major principles of 'soft surgery'. Our study group demonstrated that 71-86% of subjects showed preservation of preoperative hearing thresholds at 6 months to varying degree.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the degree of residual hearing preserved postoperatively in a group of standard cochlear implant (CI) candidates following implantation via soft surgery with a Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI. Surgical technique variations from the soft surgery guidelines provided were assessed and their potential impact upon the conservation of residual hearing was examined. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective multicentre study involving a within-subject repeated measures design with each subject acting as their own control was performed. Pure-tone audiometric thresholds were assessed and compared in both implanted and contralateral ears for each subject preoperatively as baseline measures and at 6 months postoperatively. Surgeons were asked to complete a questionnaire to capture various aspects of the surgical technique used for each subject. Variations in the surgical technique performed were examined for potential correlation with conservation of residual hearing. Twenty-eight adult subjects, with a severe to profound hearing impairment, were enrolled in the study across eight implant clinics in four countries.
RESULTS: In all, 36% of subjects demonstrated preservation of thresholds to within 10 dB of preoperative thresholds across the frequency range (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 KHz) and for the low frequency range (0.25-1.0 KHz). Approximately two-thirds of subjects demonstrated preservation of preoperative thresholds to within 20 dB. Preservation of low frequency thresholds post-implant was shown to correlate moderately with cochleostomy site, being more likely for subjects with a site anterior-inferior to the round window but also possible with inferior locations; weakly with cochleostomy size, being more likely when smaller than 1.2 mm; and also with the use of Healon as a sealant and lubricant. Preservation of hearing thresholds across up to 4000 Hz was shown to correlate weakly with the use of suction following opening of the endostium and with bone dust contamination, both having a negative effect upon preservation, while no correlation was observed with the preservation of thresholds for low frequencies alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 18752086     DOI: 10.1080/00016480802369278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol        ISSN: 0001-6489            Impact factor:   1.494


  11 in total

1.  Deep round window insertion versus standard approach in cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Karl Fredrik Nordfalk; Kjell Rasmussen; Marie Bunne; Greg Eigner Jablonski
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Cochlear implantation using the underwater technique: long-term results.

Authors:  Konrad Johannes Stuermer; David Schwarz; Andreas Anagiotos; Ruth Lang-Roth; Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink; Jan Christoffer Luers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  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

4.  [Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma (German version)].

Authors:  T Rader; A Bohnert; C Matthias; D Koutsimpelas; M-A Kainz; S Strieth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  Timing of Acoustic Hearing Changes After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Megan J Jensen; Heba Isaac; Helin Hernandez; Jacob Oleson; Camille Dunn; Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 2.970

Review 6.  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

7.  Residual Hearing Preservation with the Evo® Cochlear Implant Electrode Array: Preliminary Results.

Authors:  Ricardo Ferreira Bento; Fabiana Danieli; Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães; Dan Gnansia; Michel Hoen
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-16

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.  Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma.

Authors:  T Rader; A Bohnert; C Matthias; D Koutsimpelas; M-A Kainz; S Strieth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.284

10.  Evaluation of Intracochlear Trauma Caused by Insertion of Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays through Different Quadrants of the Round Window.

Authors:  Graziela de Souza Queiroz Martins; Rubens Vuono Brito Neto; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Eloisa Maria Mello Santiago Gebrim; Ricardo Ferreira Bento
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-05       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.