Objectives/Hypothesis Three surgical approaches: cochleostomy (C), round window (RW), and extended round window (ERW); and two electrodes types: lateral wall (LW) and perimodiolar (PM), account for the vast majority of cochlear implantations. The goal of this study was to analyze the relationship between surgical approach and electrode type with final intracochlear position of the electrode array and subsequent hearing outcomes. Study Design Comparative longitudinal study. Methods One hundred postlingually implanted adult patients were enrolled in the study. From the postoperative scan, intracochlear electrode location was determined and using rigid registration, transformed back to the preoperative computed tomography which had intracochlear anatomy (scala tympani and scala vestibuli) specified using a statistical shape model based on 10 microCT scans of human cadaveric cochleae. Likelihood ratio chi-square statistics were used to evaluate for differences in electrode placement with respect to surgical approach (C, RW, ERW) and type of electrode (LW, PM). Results Electrode placement completely within the scala tympani (ST) was more common for LW than were PM designs (89% vs. 58%; P < 0.001). RW and ERW approaches were associated with lower rates of electrode placement outside the ST than was the cochleostomy approach (9%, 16%, and 63%, respectively; P < 0.001). This pattern held true regardless of whether the implant was LW or PM. When examining electrode placement and hearing outcome, those with electrode residing completely within the ST had better consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores than did patients with any number of electrodes located outside the ST (P = 0.045). Conclusion These data suggest that RW and ERW approaches and LW electrodes are associated with an increased likelihood of successful ST placement. Furthermore, electrode position entirely within the ST confers superior audiological outcomes. Level Of Evidence 2b.
While the incidence of VS has remained steady, tumor size at time of diagnosis has decreased over time. Within the United States there has been a clear, recent evolution in management toward observation.
Objective To describe the relationship between implantation-associated trauma and postoperative speech perception scores among adult and pediatric patients undergoing cochlear implantation using conventional length electrodes and minimally traumatic surgical techniques. Study Design Retrospective chart review (2002–2010). Setting Tertiary academic referral center. Patients All subjects with significant preoperative low-frequency hearing (≤70 dB HL at 250 Hz) who underwent cochlear implantation with a newer generation implant electrode (Nucleus Contour Advance, Advanced Bionics HR90K [1J and Helix], and Med El Sonata standard H array) were reviewed. Intervention(s) Preimplant and postimplant audiometric thresholds and speech recognition scores were recorded using the electronic medical record. Main Outcome Measure(s) Postimplantation pure tone threshold shifts were used as a surrogate measure for extent of intracochlear injury and correlated with postoperative speech perception scores. Results Between 2002 and 2010, 703 cochlear implant (CI) operations were performed. Data from 126 implants were included in the analysis. The mean preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average was 55.4 dB HL. Hearing preservation was observed in 55% of patients. Patients with hearing preservation were found to have significantly higher postoperative speech perception performance in the cochlear implantation-only condition than those who lost all residual hearing. Conclusion Conservation of acoustic hearing after conventional length cochlear implantation is unpredictable but remains a realistic goal. The combination of improved technology and refined surgical technique may allow for conservation of some residual hearing in more than 50% of patients. Germane to the conventional length CI recipient with substantial hearing loss, minimizing trauma allows for improved speech perception in the electric condition. These findings support the use of minimally traumatic techniques in all CI recipients, even those destined for electric-only stimulation.
abbreviatioNs AAO-HNS = American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery; CPA = cerebellopontine angle; GBI = Glasgow Benefit Inventory; HRQOL = health-related quality of life; IQR = interquartile range; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; PANQOL = Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality-of-Life; PROMIS-10 = 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery; VS = vestibular schwannoma. submitted March 18, 2014. accepted November 11, 2014. iNclude wheN citiNg Published online January 2, 2015; DOI: 10.3171/2014.11.JNS14594. disclosure The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper. Internal departmental funding was used without commercial sponsorship or support. obJect The optimal treatment for sporadic vestibular schwannoma (VS) is highly controversial. To date, the majority of studies comparing treatment modalities have focused on a narrow scope of technical outcomes including facial function, hearing status, and tumor control. Very few publications have investigated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) differences between individual treatment groups, and none have used a disease-specific HRQOL instrument. methods All patients with sporadic small- to medium-sized VSs who underwent primary microsurgery, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), or observation between 1998 and 2008 were identified. Subjects were surveyed via postal questionnaire using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System short form (PROMIS-10), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), and the Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality-of-Life (PANQOL) scale. Additionally, a pool of general population adults was surveyed, providing a nontumor control group for comparison. results A total of 642 respondents were analyzed. The overall response rate for patients with VS was 79%, and the mean time interval between treatment and survey was 7.7 years. Using multivariate regression, there were no statistically significant differences between management groups with respect to the PROMIS-10 physical or mental health dimensions, the SF-36 Physical or Mental Component Summary scores, or the PANQOL general, anxiety, hearing, or energy subdomains. Patients who underwent SRS or observation reported a better total PANQOL score and higher PANQOL facial, balance, and pain subdomain scores than the microsurgical cohort (p < 0.02). The differences in scores between the nontumor control group and patients with VS were greater than differences observed between individual treatment groups for the majority of measures. coNclusioNs The differences in HRQOL outcomes following SRS, observation, and microsurgery for VS are small. Notably, the diagnosis of VS rather than treatment strategy most significantly impacts quality of life. Understanding that a large number of VSs do not grow following discovery, and that intervention does not...
Comorbidity was common between MD and VM, and their symptoms overlapped. More specific diagnostic criteria are needed to differentiate these diseases and address their coexistence. CSD co-occurred with VM but was rarely seen with MD.
Durable hearing preservation a decade after low-dose SRS for VS occurs in less than one-fourth of patients. Variables including preoperative hearing capacity and tumor size may be used to predict hearing outcomes following treatment. These findings may assist in pretreatment risk disclosure. Furthermore, these data demonstrate the importance of long-term follow-up when reporting audiometric outcomes following SRS for VS.
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.