Subtotal Petrosectomy with Cochlear Implantation or Osseointegrated Hearing Rehabilitation

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy Zhang ◽  
Flora Yan ◽  
Shaun A. Nguyen ◽  
Ted A. Meyer
Author(s):  
G. Tavartkiladze ◽  
N. Dmitriyev ◽  
V. Fedoseev ◽  
N. Mileshina ◽  
V. Bakhshinyan ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Giovanni Pepe ◽  
Sebastiano Franzini ◽  
Maurizio Guida ◽  
Maurizio Falcioni

2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (21) ◽  
pp. 822-828
Author(s):  
Nóra Kecskeméti ◽  
Anita Gáborján ◽  
Magdolna Szőnyi ◽  
Marianna Küstel ◽  
Ildikó Baranyi ◽  
...  

Abstract: Introduction: Congenital sensorineural hearing loss is one of the most common sensory defects affecting 1–3 children per 1000 newborns. There are a lot of causes which result in congenital hearing loss, the most common is the genetic origin, but infection, cochlear malformation or other acquired causes can be reasons as well. Aim: The aim of this study was to establish the etiological factors of congenital profound sensorineural hearing loss in children who underwent cochlear implantation. Results: Our results show that the origin of the hearing loss was discovered in 62.9% of our patients. The most common etiological factor was the c.35delG mutation of the gap junction protein β-2 gene, the allele frequency was 38.7% in our cohort. Infection constituted to 10.1%, and meningitis and cytomegalovirus infection were the second most common cause. 79.9% of our patients received sufficient hearing rehabilitation before the end of the speech development’s period (6 years old), but 11.2% of our cases were still diagnosed late. Conclusions: Based on our data we can state that genetic evaluation is crucial in the diagnostic process of congenital profound sensorineural hearing loss. Sufficient hearing rehabilitation affects the whole life of the child, and by late cochlear implantation the speech development falls behind. We can decrease the ratio of the late implantation with the new protocol of newborn hearing screening, and with sufficient information provided to the colleagues, so the children may be referred to the proper center for rehabilitation without delay. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(21): 822–828.


2016 ◽  
Vol 274 (2) ◽  
pp. 1173-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisashi Sugimoto ◽  
Miyako Hatano ◽  
Masao Noda ◽  
Hiroki Hasegawa ◽  
Tomokazu Yoshizaki

Skull Base ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (03) ◽  
pp. 127-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter R. Issing ◽  
Matthias P. Schönermark ◽  
S. Winkelmann ◽  
Hans-Georg Kempf ◽  
Arne Ernst ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Flora Yan ◽  
Priyanka D. Reddy ◽  
Mitchell J. Isaac ◽  
Shaun A. Nguyen ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (04) ◽  
pp. 352-364
Author(s):  
Erika A. Woodson ◽  
Ksenia Aaron ◽  
Ahn Nguyen-Huynh ◽  
Jonathan Vargo ◽  
Sarah E. Mowry

AbstractCochlear implantation (CI) is the preferred method of hearing rehabilitation when patients cannot perform well with traditional amplification. Unfortunately, there are still significant misconceptions around this life-changing intervention. The goal of this article is to address some of the most common myths around CI surgery. After reading this article, the learner will be able to explain the utility of CI in patients with residual hearing and recognize that insurance coverage is widespread. The reader will be able to list common risks associated with this well-tolerated procedure including anesthetic risk and the risk of vestibular dysfunction. Additionally, the reader will be able to identify the significant positive impact of CI on patients' quality of life. Finally, the reader will identify that many patients can safely have an MRI scan after implantation, including nearly all contemporary recipients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document