Implantation of the Malformed Cochlea

Eisenman, David J.; Ashbaugh, Carissa; Zwolan, Teresa A.; Arts, H. Alexander; Telian, Steven A.

doi:10.1097/00129492-200111000-00020

Cited by 87 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(1-tailed)]. the above results, in agreement with Bille et al study, indicated that children with inner ear malformation over time perform equally to children without inner ear malformation, but at a slower rate of improvement; this is in accordance with Eisenman et al's [3] observation that children with malformed cochlea improved more slowly than did their matched control subjects. therefore, parents should be aware of the time needed for their children to achieve the best performance after CI of the malformed cochlea and actively support this long effort.…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with cochlear implantation

Rachovitsas

Psillas

Triaridis

et al. 2014

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sig. (2-tailed), Exact Sig. (1-tailed)]. the above results, in agreement with Bille et al. study, indicated that children with inner ear malformation over time perform equally to children without inner ear malformation, but at a slower rate of improvement; this is in accordance with Eisenman et al. 's [3] observation that children with malformed cochlea improved more slowly than did their matched control subjects. therefore, parents should be aware of the time needed for their children to achieve the best performance after CI of the malformed cochlea and actively support this long effort. to the Editor,We read with interest the article titled "Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with cochlear malformations" by Bille et al.[1], whose work evaluated the outcome of cochlear implantation (CI) in children with inner ear malformation (dysplastic group) at least 3 years after CI. In this article, the authors compared the category of auditory performance (CAP) and speech intelligibility rating (SIr) tests scores of the dysplastic group with those of a control group without inner ear malformation (non-dysplastic group); they found no statistical significance regarding CAP and SIr scores between the two groups. In our cochlear implant group, we also observed similar results, as in 3 years time after CI, our dysplastic group performed as well as their matched counterparts of nondysplastic group (SPSS, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, t Student). In our previous study [2], we demonstrated that 24 months after CI, the same dysplastic group achieved significantly poorer scores in speech perception and production tests compared with the non-dysplastic group. however, during the transition from the 24 to 36 months post-CI, both groups improved their performance reaching the maximum scores in these tests, with the dysplastic group exhibiting a remarkable progress [Wilcoxon

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 90%

Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with cochlear implantation

Rachovitsas

Psillas

Triaridis

et al. 2014

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eisenman et al [2001] demonstrated improvements in speech perception over time for 17 children with cochlear malformations, albeit slower progress than their matched peers with normal cochleae. Van Wermeskerken et al [2007] found no significant differences in the speech perception means for 9 children with cochlear abnormalities (open set 48.8% and closed set 80%) and 22 congenitally deaf children with normal cochleae (open set 54% and closed set 81.5%).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…While successful surgery and good insertion depth are important, they do not guarantee development of speech perception and subsequent language development [Dowell et al, 2002a]. Some studies have examined the relationship between degree of cochlear abnormality and speech perception outcomes [Eisenman et al, 2001;Papsin, 2005] but not language outcomes, and there has been no examination of the relative effects of other known variables (such as duration of profound loss, communication mode, onset and course/progression of hearing loss and cognitive status) [Graham et al, 2000]. It is important to understand the efficacy of cochlear implants for the population of children with cochlear and/or vestibular abnormality compared to the normal population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implants in Forty-Eight Children with Cochlear and/or Vestibular Abnormality

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CT and MRI scans for 48 children with cochlear and/or vestibular abnormality were classified in decreasing severity; common cavity, Mondini plus enlarged vestibular aqueduct, Mondini dysplasia alone and enlarged vestibular aqueduct alone. No significant relationship between degree of cochlea abnormality and surgical issues (cerebrospinal fluid gusher, depth of insertion, number of electrodes) or speech perception/language outcomes was found. A significant relationship was observed between cerebrospinal fluid gusher and partial electrode insertion, fewer active electrodes and poorer sentence understanding. Optimum language outcomes were associated with younger age at implant.

show abstract

“…[16][17][18][19][20] Various methods are reported to prevent facial nerve injury during cochlear implantation in patients with inner-ear anomalies. For cochleostomy, Sennaroglu and Saatci used a combined anteroposterior approach through the ear in which the facial nerve crossed over the oval and round windows.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial nerve anomalies in paediatric cochlear implant candidates: radiological evaluation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pre-operative radiological identification of facial nerve anomalies can help prevent intra-operative facial nerve injury during cochlear implantation. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and configuration of facial nerve anomalies and their concurrence with inner-ear anomalies in cochlear implant candidates.Methods: Inner-ear and concomitant facial nerve anomalies were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging and temporal high-resolution computed tomography in 48 children with congenital sensorineural hearing loss who were cochlear implant candidates.Results: Inner-ear anomalies were present in 11 out of 48 patients (23 per cent) and concomitant facial nerve anomalies were present on 7 sides in 4 patients (7 per cent of the total). Facial nerve anomalies were accompanied by cochlear or vestibular malformation.Conclusion: Potential facial nerve abnormalities should always be considered in patients with inner-ear anomalies. Pre-operative facial nerve imaging can increase the surgeon's confidence to plan and perform cochlear implantation. Magnetic resonance imaging should be used to detect inner-ear anomalies; if these are identified, temporal high-resolution computed tomography should be used to evaluate the facial nerve.

show abstract

Implantation of the Malformed Cochlea

Abstract: Children with radiographic cochlear malformations benefit from cochlear implantation with multichannel devices. They ultimately perform as well as their matched counterparts with normal cochleae, although they may improve more slowly over time.

Cited by 87 publications

References 14 publications

Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with cochlear implantation

Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with cochlear implantation

Cochlear Implants in Forty-Eight Children with Cochlear and/or Vestibular Abnormality

Facial nerve anomalies in paediatric cochlear implant candidates: radiological evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About