Acta oto-laryngologica · 2010
Cochlear implantation in Waardenburg syndrome: The Indian scenario.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Deka Ramesh Chandra, Sikka Kapil, Chaturvedy Gaurav, Singh Chirom Amit, Venkat Karthikeyan C, Kumar Rakesh, Agarwal Shivani
Аннотация
CONCLUSION: Children with Waardenburg syndrome (WS) exhibiting normal inner ear anatomy, like those included in our cohort, derive significant benefit from cochlear implantation and results are comparable to those reported for the general population of implanted children.
OBJECTIVES: The patient population of WS accounts for approximately 2% of congenitally deaf children. The purpose of this retrospective case review was to describe the outcomes for those children with WS who have undergone cochlear implantation.
METHODS: On retrospective chart review, there were four cases with WS who underwent cochlear implantation. These cases were assessed for age at implantation, clinical and radiological features, operative and perioperative course, and performance outcomes. Auditory perception and speech production ability were evaluated using categories of auditory performance (CAP), meaningful auditory integration scales (MAIS), and speech intelligibility rating (SIR) during the follow-up period.
RESULTS: In this group of children with WS, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, the CAP score ranged from 3 to 5, MAIS from 25 to 30, and SIR was 3. These scores are comparable with those of other cochlear implantees.
OBJECTIVES: The patient population of WS accounts for approximately 2% of congenitally deaf children. The purpose of this retrospective case review was to describe the outcomes for those children with WS who have undergone cochlear implantation.
METHODS: On retrospective chart review, there were four cases with WS who underwent cochlear implantation. These cases were assessed for age at implantation, clinical and radiological features, operative and perioperative course, and performance outcomes. Auditory perception and speech production ability were evaluated using categories of auditory performance (CAP), meaningful auditory integration scales (MAIS), and speech intelligibility rating (SIR) during the follow-up period.
RESULTS: In this group of children with WS, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, the CAP score ranged from 3 to 5, MAIS from 25 to 30, and SIR was 3. These scores are comparable with those of other cochlear implantees.