The journal of international advanced otology · 2024
The Audiological Profile and Rehabilitation of Patients with Incomplete Partition Type II and Large Vestibular Aqueducts.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Demirtaş Beyza, Batuk Merve Özbal, D'Alessandro Hilal Dinçer, Sennaroğlu Gonca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Incomplete partition type II (IP-II) malformation is often accompanied by a large vestibular aqueduct (LVA). In IP anomalies, the patient's auditory rehabilitation requirements are decided according to the presence of inner ear structures and the degree of hearing loss (HL). There has been limited research on auditory rehabilitation (AR) requirement selection in patients diagnosed with IP-II and LVA. This study investigated the typical characteristics of HL and AR choices in patients diagnosed with IP-II and LVA.
METHODS: Patients with IP-II and LVA (n=55; 25 women and 30 men) were identified, and audiological evaluations were performed. The patient's demographic characteristics, the type and degree of HL, the AR method, age at diagnosis, and educational status were retrospectively compared.
RESULTS: The distribution of our 55 patients according to cochlear implants, hearing aids (HA), and bimodal applications was 29.1% (n=16), 43.6% (n=24), and 27.3% (n=15), respectively. Statistical analyses using chi-square tests found no significant differences in the incidence of dizziness/imbalance, tinnitus, HL progression, or the degree and onset of HL among the patients.
CONCLUSION: The data revealed different audiological characteristics among patients with IP-II and LVA, as well as different AR solutions. The most widely used AR modality was found to be HA. Prediction of sudden versus progressive HL development among patients is challenging, and the characteristics of IP-II vary. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.
METHODS: Patients with IP-II and LVA (n=55; 25 women and 30 men) were identified, and audiological evaluations were performed. The patient's demographic characteristics, the type and degree of HL, the AR method, age at diagnosis, and educational status were retrospectively compared.
RESULTS: The distribution of our 55 patients according to cochlear implants, hearing aids (HA), and bimodal applications was 29.1% (n=16), 43.6% (n=24), and 27.3% (n=15), respectively. Statistical analyses using chi-square tests found no significant differences in the incidence of dizziness/imbalance, tinnitus, HL progression, or the degree and onset of HL among the patients.
CONCLUSION: The data revealed different audiological characteristics among patients with IP-II and LVA, as well as different AR solutions. The most widely used AR modality was found to be HA. Prediction of sudden versus progressive HL development among patients is challenging, and the characteristics of IP-II vary. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.