OBJECTIVES: To compare hearing outcomes in patients with far advanced otosclerosis (FAO) undergoing cochlear implantation to an age-matched group of controls, to describe the effects of cochlear ossification on hearing, and to review the adverse effects of implantation in patients with FAO. HYPOTHESIS: Hearing performance in patients with FAO after cochlear implantation is comparable to similarly treated postlingually deafened adults without FAO. Ossification or retrofenestral otosclerosis does not predict poor hearing outcomes. Modiolar-hugging technology reduces postoperative facial nerve stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Academic neurotologic tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with FAO, who metaudiological criteria for cochlear implantation, were compared to 30 age-matched controls, postlingually deafened by non-otosclerotic causes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Audiometric pre- and postoperative speech reception threshold, word, and sentence scores were analyzed. The presence of retrofenestral findings on computed tomography or intraoperative cochlear ossification were noted. RESULTS: In the FAO group, radiographic abnormalities were noted in 26.4% of patients. Intraoperative ossification requiring drillout was seen in 29.4% of patients. None developed postoperative facial nerve stimulation. There was no difference between the FAO and control groups in the mean short-term and long-term postoperative speech reception threshold, word, and sentence scores (P = .77). The presence of radiographic abnormalities did not predict hearing outcome. Intraoperative cochlear ossification was not associated with worse short-term word and sentence scores (P = .58 and 0.79, respectively), and for the long-term hearing outcome (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with FAO, effective and safe hearing rehabilitation can be accomplished with cochlear implantation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare hearing outcomes in patients with far advanced otosclerosis (FAO) undergoing cochlear implantation to an age-matched group of controls, to describe the effects of cochlear ossification on hearing, and to review the adverse effects of implantation in patients with FAO. HYPOTHESIS: Hearing performance in patients with FAO after cochlear implantation is comparable to similarly treated postlingually deafened adults without FAO. Ossification or retrofenestral otosclerosis does not predict poor hearing outcomes. Modiolar-hugging technology reduces postoperative facial nerve stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Academic neurotologic tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with FAO, who metaudiological criteria for cochlear implantation, were compared to 30 age-matched controls, postlingually deafened by non-otosclerotic causes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Audiometric pre- and postoperative speech reception threshold, word, and sentence scores were analyzed. The presence of retrofenestral findings on computed tomography or intraoperative cochlear ossification were noted. RESULTS: In the FAO group, radiographic abnormalities were noted in 26.4% of patients. Intraoperative ossification requiring drillout was seen in 29.4% of patients. None developed postoperative facial nerve stimulation. There was no difference between the FAO and control groups in the mean short-term and long-term postoperative speech reception threshold, word, and sentence scores (P = .77). The presence of radiographic abnormalities did not predict hearing outcome. Intraoperative cochlear ossification was not associated with worse short-term word and sentence scores (P = .58 and 0.79, respectively), and for the long-term hearing outcome (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with FAO, effective and safe hearing rehabilitation can be accomplished with cochlear implantation.
Authors: Jonathan L Hatch; Habib G Rizk; Michael W Moore; Elizabeth E Camposeo; Shaun A Nguyen; Paul R Lambert; Ted A Meyer; Theodore R McRackan Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Woo Seok Kang; Shuting Sun; Kim Nguyen; Boris Kashemirov; Charles E McKenna; S Adam Hacking; Alicia M Quesnel; William F Sewell; Michael J McKenna; David H Jung Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Woo Seok Kang; Kim Nguyen; Charles E McKenna; William F Sewell; Michael J McKenna; David H Jung Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Iris Burck; Rania A Helal; Nagy N N Naguib; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Simon Martin; Martin Leinung; Silke Helbig; Timo Stöver; Annette Lehn; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315