Cochlear implants international · 2016
Experiences from Auditory Brainstem Implantation (ABIs) in four paediatric patients.
Клинический случайСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lundin Karin, Stillesjö Fredrik, Nyberg Gunnar, Rask-Andersen Helge
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Indications for auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) have been widened from patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) to paediatric patients with congenital cochlear malformations, cochlear nerve hypoplasia/aplasia, or cochlear ossification after meningitis. We present four ABI surgeries performed in children at Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden since 2009.
METHODS: Three children were implanted with implants from Cochlear Ltd. (Lane Cove, Australia) and one child with an implant from MedEl GMBH (Innsbruck, Austria). A boy with Goldenhar syndrome was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI24M at age 2 years (patient 1). Another boy with CHARGE syndrome was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI541 at age 2.5 years (patient 2). Another boy with post-ossification meningitis was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI24M at age 4 years (patient 3). A girl with cochlear aplasia was implanted with a MedEl Synchrony ABI at age 3 years (patient 4). In patients 1, 2, and 3, the trans-labyrinthine approach was used, and in patient 4 the retro-sigmoid approach was used.
RESULTS: Three of the four children benefited from their ABIs and use it full time. Two of the full time users had categories of auditory performance (CAP) score of 4 at their last follow up visit (6 and 2.5 years postoperative) which means they can discriminate consistently any combination of two of Ling's sounds. One child has not been fully evaluated yet, but is a full time user and had CAP 2 (responds to speech sounds) after 3 months of ABI use. No severe side or unpleasant stimulation effects have been observed so far. There was one case of immediate electrode migration and one case of implant device failure after 6.5 years.
CONCLUSION: ABI should be considered as an option in the rehabilitation of children with similar diagnoses.
METHODS: Three children were implanted with implants from Cochlear Ltd. (Lane Cove, Australia) and one child with an implant from MedEl GMBH (Innsbruck, Austria). A boy with Goldenhar syndrome was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI24M at age 2 years (patient 1). Another boy with CHARGE syndrome was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI541 at age 2.5 years (patient 2). Another boy with post-ossification meningitis was implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus ABI24M at age 4 years (patient 3). A girl with cochlear aplasia was implanted with a MedEl Synchrony ABI at age 3 years (patient 4). In patients 1, 2, and 3, the trans-labyrinthine approach was used, and in patient 4 the retro-sigmoid approach was used.
RESULTS: Three of the four children benefited from their ABIs and use it full time. Two of the full time users had categories of auditory performance (CAP) score of 4 at their last follow up visit (6 and 2.5 years postoperative) which means they can discriminate consistently any combination of two of Ling's sounds. One child has not been fully evaluated yet, but is a full time user and had CAP 2 (responds to speech sounds) after 3 months of ABI use. No severe side or unpleasant stimulation effects have been observed so far. There was one case of immediate electrode migration and one case of implant device failure after 6.5 years.
CONCLUSION: ABI should be considered as an option in the rehabilitation of children with similar diagnoses.