Literature DB >> 26693101

Middle Ear Disease and Cochlear Implant Function: A Case Study.

Joshua F Dixon1, Jennifer B Shinn1, Meg Adkins1, Bryan D Hardin1, Matthew L Bush1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: It has been our clinical observation that active middle ear disease (MED) temporally corresponds to a transient decrease in cochlear implant (CI) function, specifically at the apical electrodes. This is non-intuitive as CI function is thought to be independent of middle ear aeration and inflammation. The purpose of this case study is to demonstrate how active MED negatively affects both subjective hearing complaints and objective impedance measures in a CI patient.
RESULTS: Subjective hearing decreased and impedances levels increased significantly when the patient was experiencing active MED. No significant changes in these measures occurred when there was no active MED.
CONCLUSIONS: MED may affect CI function in some patients requiring adjustments in programing at times of involvement.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear Implant; Function; Impedance; Middle Ear Disease

Year:  2014        PMID: 26693101      PMCID: PMC4676574          DOI: 10.3109/21695717.2014.918757

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hearing Balance Commun        ISSN: 2169-5717


  9 in total

1.  Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant.

Authors:  Yael Henkin; Ricky Kaplan-Neeman; Chava Muchnik; Jona Kronenberg; Minka Hildesheimer
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.675

2.  Revision cochlear implant surgery in patients with suspected soft failures.

Authors:  Doug Chung; Ana H Kim; Simon Parisier; Christopher Linstrom; George Alexiades; Ronald Hoffman; Darius Kohan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 3.  Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement.

Authors:  T J Balkany; A V Hodges; C A Buchman; W M Luxford; C H Pillsbury; P S Roland; J K Shallop; D D Backous; D Franz; J M Graham; B Hirsch; M Luntz; J K Niparko; J Patrick; S L Payne; F F Telischi; E A Tobey; E Truy; S Staller
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Spontaneous increases in impedance following cochlear implantation: suspected causes and management.

Authors:  J Neuburger; T Lenarz; A Lesinski-Schiedat; A Büchner
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Trends in cochlear implant complications: implications for improving long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Andrew Causon; Carl Verschuur; Tracey A Newman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Revision cochlear implant surgery in adult patients with suspected device malfunction.

Authors:  Craig A Buchman; Carol A Higgins; Robert Cullen; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Jose Luis Vargas; Manuel Sainz; Cristina Roldan; Isaac Alvarez; Angel de la Torre
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 3.372

8.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Revision cochlear implant surgery in children.

Authors:  Robert D Cullen; Jose N Fayad; William M Luxford; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.