Objective:To determine the audiological and clinical results of cochlear implantation in children below the age of 12 years old with congenital and acquired singlesided deafness.Design: Observational, descriptive, transversal study. Main outcome measures: Speech reception thresholds, Cortical responses, AuditoryLateralization Test and SSQ questionnaire.Participants: Children < 12 implanted for congenital or acquired SSD.Results: All the children with congenital SSD showed positive cortical responses.Positive results were obtained in the Auditory Lateralization Test for the following modalities: 0°, 45°and 90°.With respect to the Speech Test, the children with acquired SSD showed the following results: 92% and 100% in recognition and 48% and 68% (Azimuth modalities), Signal CI side 52% and 68% and Signal normal hearing side 44% -60% (p < 0.05).In both group the processor was used for 6-12 hours.With respect to the SSQ questionnaire results, the parents were more satisfied within the post-operative period than within the pre-operative period (P<0.001). Conclusions:Cochlear implant provides children with congenital SSD with significant audiological and subjective benefits. Children with congenital SSD and implanted after a longer period may not have an important benefit (binaural) although other bilateral effects can be achieved. Children with post-lingual unilateral deafness and after a short period of hearing deprivation probably integrated the normal acoustic hearing with the cochlear implant electrical signal and showed binaural benefits.
Background: In patients with bilateral vestibulopathy, the regular treatment options, such as medication, surgery, and/or vestibular rehabilitation, do not always suffice. Therefore, the focus in this field of vestibular research shifted to electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) and the development of a system capable of artificially restoring the vestibular function. Key Message: Currently, three approaches are being investigated: vestibular co-stimulation with a cochlear implant (CI), EVS with a vestibular implant (VI), and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). All three applications show promising results but due to conceptual differences and the experimental state, a consensus on which application is the most ideal for which type of patient is still missing. Summary: Vestibular co-stimulation with a CI is based on “spread of excitation,” which is a phenomenon that occurs when the currents from the CI spread to the surrounding structures and stimulate them. It has been shown that CI activation can indeed result in stimulation of the vestibular structures. Therefore, the question was raised whether vestibular co-stimulation can be functionally used in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. A more direct vestibular stimulation method can be accomplished by implantation and activation of a VI. The concept of the VI is based on the technology and principles of the CI. Different VI prototypes are currently being evaluated regarding feasibility and functionality. So far, all of them were capable of activating different types of vestibular reflexes. A third stimulation method is GVS, which requires the use of surface electrodes instead of an implanted electrode array. However, as the currents are sent through the skull from one mastoid to the other, GVS is rather unspecific. It should be mentioned though, that the reported spread of excitation in both CI and VI use also seems to induce a more unspecific stimulation. Although all three applications of EVS were shown to be effective, it has yet to be defined which option is more desirable based on applicability and efficiency. It is possible and even likely that there is a place for all three approaches, given the diversity of the patient population who serves to gain from such technologies.
Introduction: Bilateral vestibulopathy is an important cause of imbalance that is misdiagnosed. The clinical management of patients with bilateral vestibular loss remains difficult as there is no clear evidence for an effective treatment. In this paper, we try to analyze the effect of chronic electrical stimulation and adaptation to electrical stimulation of the vestibular system in humans when stimulating the otolith organ with a constant pulse train to mitigate imbalance due to bilateral vestibular dysfunction (BVD). Methods: We included 2 patients in our study with BVD according to Criteria Consensus of the Classification Committee of the Bárány Society. Both cases were implanted by using a full-band straight electrode to stimulate the otoliths organs and simultaneously for the cochlear stimulation we use a perimodiolar electrode. Results: In both cases Vestibular and clinical test (video head impulse test, videonistagmography cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, cVEMP and oVEMP), subjective visual vertical test, computerized dynamic posturography, dynamic gait index, Time UP and Go test and dizziness handicap index) were performed. Posture and gait metrics reveal important improvement if compare with preoperartive situation. Oscillopsia, unsteadiness, independence and quality of life improved to almost normal situation. Discussion/Conclusion: Prosthetic implantation of the otolith organ in humans is technically feasible. Electrical stimulation might have potential effects on balance and this is stable after 1 year follow-up. This research provides new possibilities for the development of vestibular implants to improve gravito-inertial acceleration sensation, in this case by the otoliths stimulation.
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of electrode discrimination based on electrode to modiolus distance in different cochlear implant models, using image information to estimate the outcomes after an implantation on electrode discrimination METHODS: A descriptive prospective randomized study performed during 16 months. A psychoacoustic platform was used to evaluate patients' electrode discrimination capabilities of patients. For the acquisition of the images, a cone beam computed tomography was used to assess postcochlear implantation of electrodes' position. We considered two other new measurements: the intracochlear position index, which indicates how far is the electrode from the modiolar wall, and the homogeneity factor (HF), which provides us with information about the distance between the electrodes and the modiolus RESULTS: 21 postlingually deaf adults showing different CI models [CI522 (n = 7), CI512 (n = 7), and CI532 (n = 7)] that corresponded to the lateral and perimodiolar array electrodes. The average success rate of the CI522 group was 47%, of the CI512 group was 48%, and of the CI532 group was 77%. There is statistically significant difference between groups CI532-CI522 (p = 0.0033) and CI532-CI512 (p = 0.0027) CONCLUSION: The Nucleus CI532 offers a better perimodiolar placement. HF and IPI measurements provide information about the electrodes location inside the cochlea, being related to electrode discrimination.
<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Transimpedance measurements from cochlear implant electrodes have the potential to identify anomalous electrode array placement, such as tip fold-over (TFO) or fold-back, basal electrode kinking, or buckling. Analysing transimpedance may thus replace intraoperative or post-operative radiological imaging to detect any potential misplacements. A transimpedance algorithm was previously developed to detect deviations from a normal electrode position with the aim of intraoperatively detecting TFO. The algorithm had been calibrated on 35 forced, tip folded electrode arrays in six temporal bones to determine the threshold criterion required to achieve a sensitivity of 100%. Our primary objective here was to estimate the specificity of this TFO algorithm in patients, in a prospective study, for a series of electrode arrays shown to be normally inserted by post-operative imaging. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Intracochlear voltages were intraoperatively recorded for 157 ears, using Cochlear’s Custom Sound™ EP 5 electrophysiological software (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, NSW, Australia), for both Nucleus® CI512 and CI532 electrode arrays. The algorithm analysed the recorded 22 × 22 transimpedance matrix (TIM) and results were displayed as a heatmap intraoperatively, only visible to the technician in the operating theatre. After all clinical data were collected, the algorithm was evaluated on the bench. The algorithm measures the transimpedance gradients and corresponding phase angles (θ) throughout the TIM and calculates the gradient phase range. If this was greater than the predetermined threshold, the algorithm classified the electrode array insertion as having a TFO. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Five ears had no intraoperative TIM and four anomalous matrices were identified from heatmaps and removed from the specificity analysis. Using the 148 remaining data sets (<i>n</i> = 103 CI532 and <i>n</i> = 45 CI512), the algorithm had an average specificity of 98.6% (95.80%–99.75%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The algorithm was found to be an effective screening tool for the identification of TFOs. Its specificity was within acceptable levels and resulted in a positive predictive value of 76%, with an estimated incidence of fold-over of 4% in perimodiolar arrays. This would mean 3 out of 4 cases flagged as a fold-over would be correctly identified by the algorithm, with the other being a false positive. The measurements were applied easily in theatre allowing it to be used as a routine clinical tool for confirming correct electrode placement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.