The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2026
Long-term analysis of vestibular function in cochlear implant recipients with enlarged vestibular aqueduct.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wang Yanqi, Li Fan, Zhao Wan, Sun Jingwu, Sun Jiaqiang, Guan Ruirui, Xiao Yongtao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term vestibular function in cochlear implant recipients with enlarged vestibular aqueduct and those without inner-ear malformations.
METHODS: A comparative analysis was conducted on 53 cochlear implant recipients (27 with enlarged vestibular aqueduct, 26 with no inner-ear malformations). Vestibular function was assessed using caloric testing, vestibular-evoked myogenic potential, the video head impulse test and age-appropriate symptom questionnaires.
RESULTS: Enlarged vestibular aqueduct patients demonstrated significantly better preservation of otolithic function post-implantation, with higher cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential response rates (56 vs 12 per cent, p = 0.001). Caloric testing showed similar vestibular dysfunction across both groups. Both cohorts exhibited significant asymmetry between implanted and non-implanted ears.
CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation impairs vestibular function regardless of cochlear morphology, affecting both otolithic and low-frequency semicircular canal function. However, better saccular function preservation in enlarged vestibular aqueduct patients suggests unique vestibular adaptation, with implications for counselling and rehabilitation.
METHODS: A comparative analysis was conducted on 53 cochlear implant recipients (27 with enlarged vestibular aqueduct, 26 with no inner-ear malformations). Vestibular function was assessed using caloric testing, vestibular-evoked myogenic potential, the video head impulse test and age-appropriate symptom questionnaires.
RESULTS: Enlarged vestibular aqueduct patients demonstrated significantly better preservation of otolithic function post-implantation, with higher cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential response rates (56 vs 12 per cent, p = 0.001). Caloric testing showed similar vestibular dysfunction across both groups. Both cohorts exhibited significant asymmetry between implanted and non-implanted ears.
CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation impairs vestibular function regardless of cochlear morphology, affecting both otolithic and low-frequency semicircular canal function. However, better saccular function preservation in enlarged vestibular aqueduct patients suggests unique vestibular adaptation, with implications for counselling and rehabilitation.