Literature DB >> 23632865

Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance?

J T F Postelmans1, R J Stokroos, E van Spronsen, W Grolman, R A Tange, M J Maré, Wouter Albert Dreschler.   

Abstract

The goal of this work was to review the pre-and postsurgical auditory thresholds of two surgical implantation techniques, namely the mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach (MPTA) and suprameatal approach (SMA), to determine whether there is a difference in the degree of preservation of residual hearing. In a series of 430 consecutive implanted patients 227 patients had measurable pre-operative hearing thresholds at 250, 500, and 1,000 Hz. These patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique that was used for implantation. The SMA approach was followed for 84 patients in Amsterdam, whereas the MPTA technique was adhered to 143 patients in Maastricht. The outcome variables of interest were alteration of pre-and postoperative auditory thresholds after cochlear implantation. Complete or partial preservation of residual hearing was obtained in 21.4 and 21.7% in the SMA and MPTA group, respectively. No statistical differences could be found between the SMA and MPTA group (p = 0.96; Chi-square test). The SMA technique is correlated with a similar degree of hearing loss after cochlear implantation compared to the MPTA technique. However, both techniques were not able to conserve a measurable amount of hearing in patients with a substantial degree of residual hearing. Therefore, both surgical techniques need to be refined for patients in which residual acoustical hearing is pursued.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632865     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-013-2438-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  30 in total

1.  [Speech discrimination in post-lingually deaf patients with cochlear implants].

Authors:  W Gstoettner; O Adunka; J Hamzavi; M Lautischer; W D Baumgartner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2000-06-02       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical approach to cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jona Kronenberg; Wolfgang Baumgartner; Lela Migirov; Tal Dagan; Minka Hildesheimer
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Comparison of two approaches to the surgical management of cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Job T F Postelmans; Wilko Grolman; Rinze A Tange; Robert J Stokroos
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation: comparison between straight and perimodiolar implants.

Authors:  Antonio Soda-Merhy; Leonardo Gonzalez-Valenzuela; Carmen Tirado-Gutierrez
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.497

5.  Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique.

Authors:  R Häusler
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  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?

Authors:  Job T F Postelmans; Erik van Spronsen; Wilko Grolman; Robert J Stokroos; Rinze A Tange; Marcel J Maré; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Cochlear implants.

Authors:  W F House
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1976 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.547

8.  Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss--implications for patient selection.

Authors:  J Kiefer; C von Ilberg; B Reimer; R Knecht; V Gall; G Diller; E Stürzebecher; T Pfennigdorff; A Spelsberg
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec

Review 9.  Cochlear implantation for the treatment of deafness.

Authors:  Benjamin J Copeland; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 13.739

10.  Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study.

Authors:  B Fraysse; N Dillier; T Klenzner; R Laszig; M Manrique; C Morera Perez; A H Morgon; J Müller-Deile; A Ramos Macias
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-09
View more
  2 in total

1.  Impact of the surgical experience on cochleostomy location: a comparative temporal bone study between endaural and posterior tympanotomy approaches for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Clair Vandersteen; Thomas Demarcy; Coralie Roger; Eric Fontas; Charles Raffaelli; Nicholas Ayache; Hervé Delingette; Nicolas Guevara
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Hearing preservation and cochlear implants according to inner ear approach: multicentric evaluation.

Authors:  Alexandre Caixeta Guimarães; Guilherme Machado de Carvalho; Alexandre S M Duarte; Walter A Bianchini; Andrea Bravo Sarasty; Maria Fernanda di Gregorio; Mario Emilio Zernotti; Edi Lúcia Sartorato; Arthur Menino Castilho
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-12-27
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.