Literature DB >> 21792971

An evaluation of preservation of residual hearing using the suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation: can this implantation technique be used for preservation of residual hearing?

Job T F Postelmans1, Erik van Spronsen, Wilko Grolman, Robert J Stokroos, Rinze A Tange, Marcel J Maré, Wouter A Dreschler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The preservation of residual hearing has become a high priority in cochlear implant surgery. This study was designed to substantiate whether conservation of residual hearing can be preserved after cochlear implantation using the suprameatal approach. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed in 109 severely to profoundly hearing impaired cochlear recipients who had some measurable hearing preoperatively. Subsequently, the pre- and postoperative pure-tone thresholds were analyzed by three different analyses to observe the degree of hearing preservation.
RESULTS: Single-subject results showed a complete conservation of residual hearing (change in pure-tone average [ΔPTA] ≤ 10 dB) in 27 of 109 patients (24.7%). Partial conservation of residual hearing (ΔPTA > 10 dB) was observed in 77 patients (70.6%), but these percentages have been affected severely by ceiling effects. Furthermore, group-subject results demonstrated that the median postoperative PTA was 11.7 dB worse than the preoperative PTA. For individual frequencies, the median deteriorations were 15, 20, 10, and 5 dB at 250, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz, respectively. Stratification for the absence of postoperative hearing thresholds showed a conservation of measurable postoperative hearing levels in 17.4% of all study patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that complete preservation of residual hearing is possible in a limited number of patients using the suprameatal approach technique for cochlear implantation. For a reliable analysis of the audiometric effects of cochlear implant surgery, it is important to take into account the ceiling effects, therefore using different calculation methods to estimate the accurate deterioration of hearing thresholds.
Copyright © 2011 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21792971     DOI: 10.1002/lary.21866

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Endoscopic assisted cochlear implants in ear malformations.

Authors:  Daniele Marchioni; Davide Soloperto; Maria C Guarnaccia; Elisabetta Genovese; Matteo Alicandri-Ciufelli; Livio Presutti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 2.503

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.  Cochlear implantation using a suprameatal approach in a case of severely contracted mastoid cavity.

Authors:  Ji Eun Choi; Jeon Yeob Jang; Yang-Sun Cho
Journal:  Korean J Audiol       Date:  2014-12-22
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.