European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
Cochlear implantation in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: two cases with a review of the literature.
СтатьяКлинический случайОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Bokhyun, Cho Heechun, Yun Jason, Moon Il Joon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report two cases of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) patients with novel mutations. Furthermore, we conducted a detailed literature review on the profile and outcomes of CI in this uncommon clinical circumstance.
CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 involved a 25-year-old woman who was referred for sudden hearing loss (HL) in her left ear and had a 7-year history of HL in her right ear. She was diagnosed with CMT type 1 with a thymidine phosphorylase gene mutation. CI was performed on her left side because her hearing gradually worsened to deafness in both ears. At 3 months post-operation, her speech discrimination score without lip-reading improved from 0 to 100%. She underwent a second CI on her right ear 6 months after her first CI. Two years from her first operation, the speech discrimination score was 100%. Case 2 received her first CI on her right ear at the age of nine for her bilateral HL. She was diagnosed with CMT type 2 with a Twinkle mitochondrial DNA helicase gene mutation. Preoperatively, the speech discrimination score in both ear-aided conditions was 70%. At the 7-year post-operation follow-up, the speech discrimination score was 76%. A second CI was performed due to decreasing hearing ability in her left ear. The speech discrimination score showed 100% at 7 months after the second CI.
CONCLUSIONS: CI is an effective hearing rehabilitation option for CMT patients with severe-to-profound SNHL. Neuro-otologists should consider CI as a treatment option, even though hearing loss in CMT is associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disease (ANSD).
CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 involved a 25-year-old woman who was referred for sudden hearing loss (HL) in her left ear and had a 7-year history of HL in her right ear. She was diagnosed with CMT type 1 with a thymidine phosphorylase gene mutation. CI was performed on her left side because her hearing gradually worsened to deafness in both ears. At 3 months post-operation, her speech discrimination score without lip-reading improved from 0 to 100%. She underwent a second CI on her right ear 6 months after her first CI. Two years from her first operation, the speech discrimination score was 100%. Case 2 received her first CI on her right ear at the age of nine for her bilateral HL. She was diagnosed with CMT type 2 with a Twinkle mitochondrial DNA helicase gene mutation. Preoperatively, the speech discrimination score in both ear-aided conditions was 70%. At the 7-year post-operation follow-up, the speech discrimination score was 76%. A second CI was performed due to decreasing hearing ability in her left ear. The speech discrimination score showed 100% at 7 months after the second CI.
CONCLUSIONS: CI is an effective hearing rehabilitation option for CMT patients with severe-to-profound SNHL. Neuro-otologists should consider CI as a treatment option, even though hearing loss in CMT is associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disease (ANSD).