No abstract

Aims: The Nucleus CI532 cochlear implant incorporates a new precurved electrode array, i.e., the Slim Modiolar electrode (SME), which is designed to bring electrode contacts close to the medial wall of the cochlea while avoiding trauma due to scalar dislocation or contact with the lateral wall during insertion. The primary aim of this prospective study was to determine the final position of the electrode array in clinical cases as evaluated using flat-panel volume computed tomography. Methods: Forty-five adult candidates for unilateral cochlear implantation were recruited from 8 centers. Eleven surgeons attended a temporal bone workshop and received further training with a transparent plastic cochlear model just prior to the first surgery. Feedback on the surgical approach and use of the SME was collected via a questionnaire for each case. Computed tomography of the temporal bone was performed postoperatively using flat-panel digital volume tomography or cone beam systems. The primary measure was the final scalar position of the SME (completely in scala tympani or not). Secondly, medial-lateral position and insertion depth were evaluated. Results: Forty-four subjects received a CI532. The SME was located completely in scala tympani for all subjects. Pure round window (44% of the cases), extended round window (22%), and inferior and/or anterior cochleostomy (34%) approaches were successful across surgeons and cases. The SME was generally positioned close to the modiolus. Overinsertion of the array past the first marker tended to push the basal contacts towards the lateral wall and served only to increase the insertion depth of the first electrode contact without increasing the insertion depth of the most apical electrode. Complications were limited to tip fold-overs encountered in 2 subjects; both were attributed to surgical error, with both reimplanted successfully. Conclusions: The new Nucleus CI532 cochlear implant with SME achieved the design goal of producing little or no trauma as indicated by consistent scala tympani placement. Surgeons should be carefully trained to use the new deployment method such that tip fold-overs and over insertion may be avoided.

Diagnosis of sialolithiasis is the result of careful consideration of patient histories demonstrating typical symptoms and clinical examination. Sonography is the first choice of imaging. Pathogenesis of sialolithiasis seems to be based on local factors within the salivary ducts and glands.

Although contrast medium analysis provided statistical criteria, these, however, do not possess the ability to improve the diagnostic prediction of tumor histology. Neither the morphologic classification nor contrast medium analysis was able to identify a malignant lesion sufficiently.

No abstract

No abstract

The hearing outcomes obtained with the new superelastic nitinol prosthesis were similar to those that we had obtained previously with the SMart prosthesis. The fixation mechanism is simpler than with other types of prosthesis; however, the loop of the prosthesis seems not to be equally suitable for all diameters of the long process of the incus.

Gene fusions involving the NUTM1 gene (NUT) represent defining genetic markers of a highly aggressive carcinoma type with predilection for the midline structures of children and young adults, hence the original description as NUT midline carcinoma. Recent studies have increasingly documented involvement of the NUTM1 gene in the pathogenesis of other entities as well. We herein describe two cases of auditory canal carcinomas with features of porocarcinoma, both harboring a newly described YAP1-NUTM1 gene fusion. Patients were males aged 28 and 82 years who presented with slowly growing lesions in the external auditory canal. Histologic examination showed monomorphic basaloid and squamoid cells arranged into organoid solid aggregates, nests, ducts, small cysts, and focal pseudocribriform pattern with variable mitotic activity, infiltrative growth, and focal squamous differentiation, particularly in the most superficial part of the tumor. Immunohistochemistry revealed consistent reactivity for CK5, p63 and SOX10 and diffuse aberrant expression of TP53. CK7 expression was limited to a few luminal ductal cells. The androgen receptor and S100 were negative. Next generation sequencing (TruSight RNA fusion panel, Illumina) revealed the same YAP1-NUTM1 gene fusion in both tumors, which was subsequently confirmed by NUT-FISH and the monoclonal anti-NUT antibody. These cases represent a novel contribution to the spectrum of NUT-rearranged head and neck malignancies. This adnexal carcinoma variant should not be confused with the highly lethal NUT carcinoma based on NUT immunoreactivity alone.