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 · 2019
Effect on vestibular function of cochlear implantation by partial deafness treatment-electro acoustic stimulation (PDT-EAS).
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Sosna Magdalena, Tacikowska Grażyna, Pietrasik Katarzyna, Skarżyński Henryk, Lorens Artur, Skarżyński Piotr H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Although the cochlear implantation procedure does not interfere with vestibular structures directly, both the vestibulum and the cochlea share the same inner ear fluid space, and this fluid may be responsible for transferring possibly damaging forces from one to the other. The purpose of the study is to assess postoperative vestibular function after partial deafness treatment-electro-acoustic stimulation (PDT-EAS) cochlear implantation.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients were included in the study (30 females, 25 males, age 11-80, mean 41.8 ± 19.35). cVEMP and oVEMP were performed preoperatively and 1-3 months after cochlear implantation. Caloric and vHIT tests were conducted preoperatively and 4-6 months after cochlear implantation.
RESULTS: Our study shows that, based on a wide range of electrodes, use of PDT-EAS is protective in terms of preserving vestibular function. It gives a rate of saccular damage of 15.79%, utricular damage of 19.04%, and a horizontal semicircular canal response reduction of 15.79%.
CONCLUSIONS: PDT-EAS is protective in terms of preserving vestibular function. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the risk of vestibular damage cannot be totally eliminated even when hearing preservation techniques are adopted.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients were included in the study (30 females, 25 males, age 11-80, mean 41.8 ± 19.35). cVEMP and oVEMP were performed preoperatively and 1-3 months after cochlear implantation. Caloric and vHIT tests were conducted preoperatively and 4-6 months after cochlear implantation.
RESULTS: Our study shows that, based on a wide range of electrodes, use of PDT-EAS is protective in terms of preserving vestibular function. It gives a rate of saccular damage of 15.79%, utricular damage of 19.04%, and a horizontal semicircular canal response reduction of 15.79%.
CONCLUSIONS: PDT-EAS is protective in terms of preserving vestibular function. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the risk of vestibular damage cannot be totally eliminated even when hearing preservation techniques are adopted.