LXXVII Stapes Surgery: Selection of the Patient

House, Howard P.; Sheehy, James L.

doi:10.1177/000348946107000411

Cited by 47 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree to the opinion of some authors like Lippy et al [2] who contrary to the concept of Iurato et al [3], accept the definition of House and Sheehy [4]. Accordingly, the cases with fragmentary bone response are considered to be faradvanced [2] in our present study.…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

Reply

Ghonim¹

1998

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 86%

Reply

Ghonim¹

1998

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Far advanced otosclerosis was first defined by House and Sheehy [1961] in the 1960s as an air conduction threshold of more than 85 dB and a bone conduction threshold beyond the measurement limits of the standard clinical audiometers available at that time. In the current era of cochlear implantation, speech discrimination scores are more likely to be used than pure-tone thresholds, and the term advanced otosclerosis has replaced far advanced otosclerosis to refer to people with SNHL and decreased speech recognition abilities [Merkus et al, 2011;Abdurehim et al, 2016].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implant Users with Otosclerosis: Are Hearing and Quality of Life Outcomes Worse than in Cochlear Implant Users without Otosclerosis?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The otosclerotic process may influence the performance of the cochlear implant (CI). Difficulty in inserting the electrode array due to potential ossification of the cochlea, facial nerve stimulation, and instability of the results are potential challenges for the CI team. Objectives: To evaluate hearing results and subjective outcomes of CI users with otosclerosis and to compare them with those of CI users without otosclerosis. Method: Retrospective review of 239 adults with bilateral profound postlingual deafness who underwent unilateral cochlear implantation between 1992 and 2017. Hearing and speech understanding were assessed via pure-tone audiometry and speech perception tests. Subjective outcomes were assessed via the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), and the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI₁₉) at 6 months, 12 months, and at the last follow-up. Results: Subjects were 22 CI users with otosclerosis and 217 without otosclerosis. Both groups had a similar duration of deafness and age at CI implantation. Results did not significantly differ according to group: no significant intergroup difference was found regarding the frequency of complete electrode insertion, facial stimulation, reimplantation, or PTA4 scores at the last follow-up. Regarding speech perception, no significant intergroup difference was found on any test or at any interval. Further, subjective outcomes, as measured by the GBI, NCIQ, and HISQUI₁₉, did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusions: Adults with otosclerosis and profound hearing loss derive significant benefit from CI use. Audiological and self-reported outcomes are not significantly different from that of other CI users with postlingual deafness.

show abstract

“…Far advanced otosclerosis can be defined as mixed hearing loss with air conduction thresholds of 85-90 dB HL or nonmeasurable and a bone conduction (BC) threshold of 60 dB HL, greater or nonmeasurable [House and Sheehy, 1961]. Others also include decreased speech perception in their definition [Loon et al, 2014].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Role for Acoustic Stimulation in Advanced Otosclerosis: Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant versus Cochlear Implant

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings support the efficacy of the direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) in patients with advanced otosclerosis whose rehabilitation is very challenging. Standard treatment consists of stapes surgery combined with hearing aids or a cochlear implant (CI). CI surgery, however, is often challenging depending on the grade of otosclerosis. This study aims to compare speech perception scores in quiet and noise of 6 DACI and 12 CI patients with advanced otosclerosis at 3 and 12 months after fitting. Preoperative computed tomographic scans of all patients were scored by experts using an existing otosclerosis grading system (stages 1–3). Speech perception in quiet was significantly better for DACI compared to CI users at 3 months after fitting. At 12 months, no difference was found between DACI and CI patients. Speech perception scores in noise were significantly better in the DACI group. In summary, a DACI system seems to provide an effective treatment option as the acoustic component can be preserved in patients with advanced otosclerosis.

show abstract

LXXVII Stapes Surgery: Selection of the Patient

Cited by 47 publications

References 4 publications

Reply

Reply

Cochlear Implant Users with Otosclerosis: Are Hearing and Quality of Life Outcomes Worse than in Cochlear Implant Users without Otosclerosis?

A Role for Acoustic Stimulation in Advanced Otosclerosis: Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant versus Cochlear Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About