Literature DB >> 21730882

Hearing preservation after complete cochlear coverage in cochlear implantation with the free-fitting FLEXSOFT electrode carrier.

Silke Helbig1, Uwe Baumann, Constanze Hey, Matthias Helbig.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the possibility of atraumatic insertion with the free-fitting FLEX electrode by evaluating the degree of hearing preservation postoperatively.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two severely to profoundly hearing impaired subjects with measurable residual hearing preoperatively. INTERVENTION: Atraumatic implantation with the 31.5-mm-long, free-fitting, and highly flexible FLEX electrode using either the round window approach or a cochleostomy technique. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects were tested preoperatively in unaided condition and at varying intervals postoperatively. Preoperative and postoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) and PTA shifts were calculated. Speech perception was measured preoperatively and postoperatively using the Freiburger monosyllabic word test in quiet.
RESULTS: Preoperative low-frequency hearing could be preserved to a certain degree in 77.3% of subjects (17/22) after insertion of the FLEX electrode up to the point of first resistance. Complete loss of residual hearing was observed in 22.7% of subjects (5/22). In 18.2% of the subjects (4/22), the preoperative PTA was preserved within 10 dB. Pure-tone average results between preoperative and most recent testing showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.001 to p = 0.031) for almost all loudness levels ranging from 125 Hz to 1.5 kHz. The maximum threshold shift was 40 dB at 250 Hz for the lower frequencies up to 1 kHz. Monosyllable testing in quiet demonstrated significant improvement over time (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that preservation of residual hearing is possible in a high number of subjects when a flexible electrode and atraumatic surgical techniques are used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21730882     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31822558c4

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


  13 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.  [A sound reproduction system using wave field synthesis to simulate everyday listening conditions].

Authors:  T Weißgerber
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Would an endosteal CI-electrode make sense? Comparison of the auditory nerve excitability from different stimulation sites using ESRT measurements and mathematical models.

Authors:  Hans Wilhelm Pau; Annekathrin Grünbaum; Karsten Ehrt; Rüdiger Dahl; Tino Just; Ursula van Rienen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 4.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

5.  Initial Hearing Preservation Is Correlated With Cochlear Duct Length in Fully-inserted Long Flexible Lateral Wall Arrays.

Authors:  Emily S Hollis; Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Allison Young; Kristen Quinones; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 2.619

6.  Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Büchner; Angelika Illg; Omid Majdani; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  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

8.  Hearing preservation and clinical outcome of 32 consecutive electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) surgeries.

Authors:  Shin-Ichi Usami; Hideaki Moteki; Keita Tsukada; Maiko Miyagawa; Shin-Ya Nishio; Yutaka Takumi; Satoshi Iwasaki; Kozo Kumakawa; Yasushi Naito; Haruo Takahashi; Yukihiko Kanda; Tetsuya Tono
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 1.494

9.  ACEMg-mediated hearing preservation in cochlear implant patients receiving different electrode lengths (PROHEARING): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Verena Scheper; Melanie Leifholz; Heiko von der Leyen; Miriam Keller; Ute Denkena; Armin Koch; Annika Karch; Josef Miller; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  Electrode selection for hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: A review of the evidence.

Authors:  Jason A Brant; Michael J Ruckenstein
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-11-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.