OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implantation of patients with high-frequency hearing loss and residual low-frequency hearing has become a new treatment standard within the last years. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation using the suprameatal approach. METHODS: Five patients (mean age 48.2 years) who were supplied with Med El (Combi 40+, Pulsar) cochlear implants and various different electrodes (Custom made, Flex soft, Flex EAS) were evaluated for residual hearing preservation after a mean follow-up time of 35.6 months (range 24 to 77 months). RESULTS: Three patients showed partial hearing preservation, whereas 2 patients experienced a complete loss of residual hearing. CONCLUSION: Although hearing preservation rates in this series of patients operated on using the suprameatal approach were inferior as compared with a series using the standard mastoidectomy approach, this study shows that it is in fact possible to preserve residual hearing using a non-mastoidectomy surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Nevertheless, more experience is necessary to answer the question whether this technique can be thoroughly recommended in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implantation of patients with high-frequency hearing loss and residual low-frequency hearing has become a new treatment standard within the last years. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation using the suprameatal approach. METHODS: Five patients (mean age 48.2 years) who were supplied with Med El (Combi 40+, Pulsar) cochlear implants and various different electrodes (Custom made, Flex soft, Flex EAS) were evaluated for residual hearing preservation after a mean follow-up time of 35.6 months (range 24 to 77 months). RESULTS: Three patients showed partial hearing preservation, whereas 2 patients experienced a complete loss of residual hearing. CONCLUSION: Although hearing preservation rates in this series of patients operated on using the suprameatal approach were inferior as compared with a series using the standard mastoidectomy approach, this study shows that it is in fact possible to preserve residual hearing using a non-mastoidectomy surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Nevertheless, more experience is necessary to answer the question whether this technique can be thoroughly recommended in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation.
Authors: Oliver F Adunka; Andreas Radeloff; Wolfgang K Gstoettner; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Thomas J Balkany; Sarah S Connell; Annelle V Hodges; Stacy L Payne; Fred F Telischi; Adrien A Eshraghi; Simon I Angeli; Ross Germani; Sarah Messiah; Kristopher L Arheart Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen; Christopher W Turner; Jacob J Oleson; Lina A Reiss; Aaron J Parkinson Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Guilherme Machado de Carvalho; Alexandre C Guimaraes; Alexandre S M Duarte; Eder B Muranaka; Marcelo N Soki; Renata S Zanotello Martins; Walter A Bianchini; Jorge R Paschoal; Arthur M Castilho Journal: Int J Otolaryngol Date: 2013-03-17