Literature DB >> 27631659

Long-term Hearing Preservation Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Silke Helbig1, Youssef Adel, Tobias Rader, Timo Stöver, Uwe Baumann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed outcomes of hearing preservation (HP) surgery in a cochlear implant patient population, with clinical follow-up results up to 11 years after implantation. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital. PATIENTS: Ninety six patients (103 ears) with partial deafness who underwent HP surgery at the University Hospital Frankfurt since 1999 were included. Electrode carriers were Cochlear Slim Straight, MED-EL Standard, Medium, Flex, and Flex. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation using the HP surgery technique with either the cochleostomy or round window approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pure-tone averages for low frequencies (125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, PTAlow) and speech perception scores of the Freiburg monosyllable and number tests in quiet. PTAlow shifts were used to evaluate HP as complete for ≤10 dB, partial between 10 and 30 dB, and minimal for ≥30 dB. Time intervals were: preoperative, postoperative, after 12 months, and long-term (>24 months, mean 51.4 months, range 2-11 years). Impacts of electrode design and surgical approach were analyzed.
RESULTS: Postoperatively (n = 103), HP was complete in 32 (31.1%), partial in 49 (47.6%), minimal in 14 (13.6%), and loss of hearing occurred in 8 cases (7.8%). After 12 months (n = 81), HP was complete in 22 (27.2%), partial in 33 (40.7%), minimal in 11 (13.6%), and loss of hearing occurred in 7 additional cases. For long-term outcomes (n = 62) HP was complete in 7 (11.3%), partial in 24 (38.7%), minimal in 9 (14.5%), and loss of hearing occurred in 7 additional cases (total 22/103, 21.4%). Cases with residual hearing who could utilize acoustic amplification (i.e., PTAlow < 80 dB HL) were 82/95 (85.3%) postoperatively, 58/66 (87.9%) after 12 months, and 38/40 (95.0%) for long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term HP is feasible in a subset of patients. Patients with sufficient long-term residual hearing had the prerequisite to benefit from additional acoustic stimulation. No correlation of total hearing loss with etiology, electrode design, or surgical approach was evident. Apart from individual effects of structural damage or inflammation, genetic factors are suggested to influence HP. Cases with total hearing loss still demonstrated successful speech perception in long-term monosyllable recognition scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27631659     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  25 in total

1.  Influence of In Vitro Electrical Stimulation on Survival of Spiral Ganglion Neurons.

Authors:  Marvin N Peter; Athanasia Warnecke; Uta Reich; Heidi Olze; Agnieszka J Szczepek; Thomas Lenarz; Gerrit Paasche
Journal:  Neurotox Res       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.911

2.  Long-term residual hearing in cochlear implanted adult patients who were candidates for electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Elisabeth Mamelle; Benjamin Granger; Olivier Sterkers; Ghizlene Lahlou; Evelyne Ferrary; Yann Nguyen; Isabelle Mosnier
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  [Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma (German version)].

Authors:  T Rader; A Bohnert; C Matthias; D Koutsimpelas; M-A Kainz; S Strieth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Measurements in Traditional and Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Ashley M Nassiri; Robert J Yawn; René H Gifford; David S Haynes; Jillian B Roberts; Max S Gilbane; Jack Murfee; Marc L Bennett
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Early Hearing Preservation Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation With New Slim Lateral Wall Electrode Using Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Amit Walia; Matthew A Shew; Abhinav Ettyreddy; Shannon M Lefler; Pawina Jiramongkolchai; Cameron C Wick; Nedim Durakovic; Craig A Buchman; Jacques A Herzog
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Viral D Tejani; Julia K Omtvedt; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Jacob J Oleson; Marie V Ozanne
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 7.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

8.  Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Adaptation of the Standardized Hearing Outcomes Scattergram to Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Perkins; Nauman F Manzoor; David S Haynes; Matthew O'Malley; René Gifford; Alejandro Rivas
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  The Reality of Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: Who Is Utilizing EAS?

Authors:  Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.