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
Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode.
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.
Iso-Mustajärvi Matti, Sipari Sini, Löppönen Heikki, Dietz Aarno
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the insertion results and hearing preservation of a novel slim modiolar electrode (SME) in patients with residual hearing.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data from the medical files of 17 patients (18 ears) implanted with a SME. All patients had functional low frequency hearing (PTA (0.125-0.5 kHz) ≤ 80 dB HL). The insertion results were re-examined from the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans. Postoperative thresholds were obtained at the time of switch-on of the sound processors (mean 43 days) and at latest follow-up (mean 582 days). The speech recognition in noise was measured with the Finnish matrix sentence test preoperatively and at follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean insertion depth angle (IDA) was 395°. Neither scala dislocations nor tip fold over were detected. There were no total hearing losses. Functional low-frequency hearing was preserved in 15/18 (83%) ears at switch-on and in 14/17 (82%) ears at follow-up. According to HEARRING classification, 55% (10/18) had complete HP at switch-on and 41% (7/17) still at follow-up. Thirteen patients (14 ears) were initially fitted with electric-acoustic stimulation and seven patients (8 ears) continued to use it after follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary hearing preservation results with the SME were more favorable than reported for other perimodiolar electrodes. The results show that the array may also be feasible for electro-acoustic stimulation; it is beneficial in that it provides adequate cochlear coverage for pure electrical stimulation in the event of postoperative or progressive hearing loss.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data from the medical files of 17 patients (18 ears) implanted with a SME. All patients had functional low frequency hearing (PTA (0.125-0.5 kHz) ≤ 80 dB HL). The insertion results were re-examined from the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans. Postoperative thresholds were obtained at the time of switch-on of the sound processors (mean 43 days) and at latest follow-up (mean 582 days). The speech recognition in noise was measured with the Finnish matrix sentence test preoperatively and at follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean insertion depth angle (IDA) was 395°. Neither scala dislocations nor tip fold over were detected. There were no total hearing losses. Functional low-frequency hearing was preserved in 15/18 (83%) ears at switch-on and in 14/17 (82%) ears at follow-up. According to HEARRING classification, 55% (10/18) had complete HP at switch-on and 41% (7/17) still at follow-up. Thirteen patients (14 ears) were initially fitted with electric-acoustic stimulation and seven patients (8 ears) continued to use it after follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary hearing preservation results with the SME were more favorable than reported for other perimodiolar electrodes. The results show that the array may also be feasible for electro-acoustic stimulation; it is beneficial in that it provides adequate cochlear coverage for pure electrical stimulation in the event of postoperative or progressive hearing loss.