In the past, it was thought that hearing loss patients with residual low-frequency hearing would not be good candidates for cochlear implantation since insertion was expected to induce inner ear trauma. Recent advances in electrode design and surgical techniques have made the preservation of residual low-frequency hearing achievable and desirable. The importance of preserving residual low-frequency hearing cannot be underestimated in light of the added benefit of hearing in noisy atmospheres and in music quality. The concept of electrical and acoustic stimulation involves electrically stimulating the nonfunctional, high-frequency region of the cochlea with a cochlear implant and applying a hearing aid in the low-frequency range. The principle of preserving low-frequency hearing by a “soft surgery” cochlear implantation could also be useful to the population of children who might profit from regenerative hair cell therapy in the future. Main aspects of low-frequency hearing preservation surgery are discussed in this review: its brief history, electrode design, principles and advantages of electric-acoustic stimulation, surgical technique, and further implications of this new treatment possibility for hearing impaired patients.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of ear endoscopy in the postoperative management of open mastoidectomy cavities, and to test whether ear endoscopy improves inspection and cleaning compared with ear microscopy.MethodsProspective study. Thirty-two ears were divided into two groups: group 1, examination and cleaning of mastoid cavities under endoscopic visualization after microscopic standard ear cleaning; group 2, examination and cleaning of mastoid cavities under microscopic visualization after endoscope-assisted ear cleaning. We assessed the ability of each method to provide exposure and facilitate cleaning, comparing the benefits of microscopy and endoscopy when used sequentially and vice-versa.ResultsEndoscopy provided additional benefits for exposure in 61.1% of cases and cleaning in 66.7%. Microscopy provided no additional benefits in terms of exposure in any case, and provided added benefit for cleaning in only 21.4% of cases.DiscussionFor outpatient postoperative care of open mastoidectomy cavities, ear endoscopy provides greater benefit over ear microscopy than vice-versa. In over half of all cases, endoscopy was able to expose areas not visualized under the microscope. Furthermore, in two-thirds of cases, endoscopy enabled removal of material that could not be cleared under microscopy. Ear endoscopy was superior to microscopy in terms of enabling exposure and cleaning of hard-to-reach sites, due to its wider field of vision.ConclusionEar endoscopy is a feasible technique for the postoperative management of open mastoidectomy cavities. Ear endoscopy provided superior advantages in terms of exposure and aural cleaning compared with microscopy.
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.