Audiology & neuro-otology · 2018
Performance with an Auditory Brainstem Implant and Contralateral Cochlear Implant in Pediatric Patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Friedmann David R, Asfour Leena, Shapiro William H, Roland J Thomas, Waltzman Susan B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess bimodal auditory performance in children with a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral auditory brainstem implant (ABI).
METHODS: This is a retrospective case review performed at a tertiary referral center. Four patients with cochlear nerve deficiency initially underwent cochlear implantation but were not benefiting from their devices and underwent ABI in the contralateral ear. The main outcome measures included age-appropriate speech perception and production assessments.
RESULTS: Three subjects performed better on their auditory perception assessments using both of their devices than with either device alone. One subject had only preliminary outcomes, but subjectively performed best with both devices.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed continued improvement in CI performance over time, even if no benefit was evident before the decision for ABI. This could suggest that ABI and CI have a synergistic effect, or it could simply be the adaptive ability of the developing brain to utilize the signals coming from these devices. There is preliminary evidence to support choosing the ear contralateral to the CI for an ABI in a pediatric patient with bilateral cochlear nerve deficiency.
METHODS: This is a retrospective case review performed at a tertiary referral center. Four patients with cochlear nerve deficiency initially underwent cochlear implantation but were not benefiting from their devices and underwent ABI in the contralateral ear. The main outcome measures included age-appropriate speech perception and production assessments.
RESULTS: Three subjects performed better on their auditory perception assessments using both of their devices than with either device alone. One subject had only preliminary outcomes, but subjectively performed best with both devices.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed continued improvement in CI performance over time, even if no benefit was evident before the decision for ABI. This could suggest that ABI and CI have a synergistic effect, or it could simply be the adaptive ability of the developing brain to utilize the signals coming from these devices. There is preliminary evidence to support choosing the ear contralateral to the CI for an ABI in a pediatric patient with bilateral cochlear nerve deficiency.