Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance?
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：J. T. F. Postelmans (1)
R. J. Stokroos (1)
E. van Spronsen (2)
W. Grolman (3)
R. A. Tange (3)
M. J. Maré (2)
Wouter Albert Dreschler (2) - 关键词：Cochlear implantation ; Suprameatal approach ; Preservation of residual hearing ; Surgical techniques
- 刊名：European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：May 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：271
- 期：5
- 页码：997-1005
- 全文大小：540 KB
- 参考文献：1. Copeland BJ, Pillsbury HC 3rd (2004) Cochlear implantation for the treatment of deafness. Annu Rev Med 55:157-67 CrossRef
2. Fraysse B, Dillier N, Klenzner T et al (1998) Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study. Am J Otol 19:591-97
3. Fraysse B, Ramos-Macias A, Sterkers O et al (2006) Combined electro-acoustic stimulation in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 27:624-33 CrossRef
4. James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al (2005) Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 125:481-91 CrossRef
5. Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner WD, Pok S, Peters S, Adunka O (2004) Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 124:348-52 CrossRef
6. Skarzynski H, Lorens A, D’Haese P et al (2002) Preservation of residual hearing in children and post-lingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: an initial study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 64:247-53 CrossRef
7. Gantz B, Turner C, Gfeller K, Lowder M (2005) Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 115:796-02 CrossRef
8. Gantz BJ, Turner CW (2005) Combining acoustic and electoral hearing. Laryngoscope 115:1726-730
9. Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W et al (2004) Conservation of low frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 124(3):272-80
10. Balkany T, Connell S, Hodges A et al (2006) Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Oto Neurotol 27:1083-088 CrossRef
11. Gtoettner W, Adunka O, Hamzavi J, Lautischer M, Baumgartner W (2000) Speech discrimination scores of post-lingually deaf cochlear-implant patients. Wien Klin Wochenschr German 112:487-91
12. Helms J, Muller J, Schon F et al (1997) Evaluation of performance with the COMBI 40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Rel Spec 59:23-5 CrossRef
13. Hodges AV, Schloffman J, Balkany T (1997) Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 18:179-83 CrossRef
14. Kiefer J, Von Ilberg C, Reimer B et al (1998) Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss-implications for the indications. Audiology 37:382-95 CrossRef
15. van Dijk JE, von Olphen AF, Langereis M, Mens L, Broks J, Smoorenburg G (1999) Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 38:109-16 CrossRef
16. Berrettini S, Forli F, Passetti S (2008) Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 122:246-52 CrossRef
17. House WF (1976) Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 85:1-3
18. Colletti V, Fiorino FG, Carner M et al (2000) New approach for cochlear implantation: cochleostomy through the middle fossa. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:467-74 CrossRef
19. Kiratzidis T, Arnold W, Iliades T (2002) Veria operation updated. I. The trans-canal wall cochlear implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 64:406-12 CrossRef
20. Kiratzidis T, Iliades T (2002) Veria operation AW II: surgical results from 101 cases. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 64:413-16 CrossRef
21. Hausler R (2002) Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique. Acta Otolaryngol 122:715-19 CrossRef
22. Kronenberg J, Baumgartner W, Migirov L, Dagan T, Hildesheimer M (2004) The suprameatal approach: an alternative approach to cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 25:41-5 CrossRef
23. Postelmans JT, Grolman W, Tange RA, Stokroos RJ (2009) Comparison of two approaches to the surgical management of cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 119(8):1571-578 CrossRef
24. Postelmans JT, Tange RA, Stokroos RJ, Grolman W (2010) The suprameatal approach: a safe alternative surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 31(2):196-03 CrossRef
25. Postelmans JT, van Spronsen E, Grolman W et al (2011) An evaluation of preservation of residual hearing using the suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation. Can this implantation technique be used for the preservation of hearing? Laryngoscope 121(8):1794-799 CrossRef
26. Di Nardo W, Cantore I, Melillo P et al (2007) Residual hearing in cochlear implant patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:855-60 CrossRef
27. Berrettini S, Forli F, Passetti S (2008) Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 122:246-52 CrossRef
28. Soda-Merhy A, Gonzalez-Valenzuela L, Tirado-Gutierrez C (2008) Residual hearing after cochlear implantation: comparison between straight and perimodiolar implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(3):399-04 CrossRef
29. Shapira Y, Sultan AA, Kronenberg J (2011) The insertion trajectory in cochlear implantation—comparison between two approaches. Acta Otolaryngol 131:958-61 CrossRef
30. Dahm MC, Xu J, Tykocinski M, Shepherd RK, Clark GM (2000) Post mortem study of intracochlear position of the Nucleus Standard 22 electrode array. Proc 5th European symposium on paediatric cochlear implantation, Antwerp, Belgium, June 4-, 2000
31. Briggs R, Tykocinski M, Saunders E et al (2001) Surgical implications of perimodiolar electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion. Cochlear Implant Int 2:135-49 CrossRef
32. Briggs R, Tykocinski M, Stidha K, Roberson J (2005) Cochleostomy site: implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation. Acta Oto-Laryngol 125:870-76 CrossRef - 作者单位：J. T. F. Postelmans (1)
R. J. Stokroos (1)
E. van Spronsen (2)
W. Grolman (3)
R. A. Tange (3)
M. J. Maré (2)
Wouter Albert Dreschler (2)
1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, D2-240, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands - ISSN：1434-4726
文摘
The goal of this work was to review the pre-and postsurgical auditory thresholds of two surgical implantation techniques, namely the mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach (MPTA) and suprameatal approach (SMA), to determine whether there is a difference in the degree of preservation of residual hearing. In a series of 430 consecutive implanted patients 227 patients had measurable pre-operative hearing thresholds at 250, 500, and 1,000?Hz. These patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique that was used for implantation. The SMA approach was followed for 84 patients in Amsterdam, whereas the MPTA technique was adhered to 143 patients in Maastricht. The outcome variables of interest were alteration of pre-and postoperative auditory thresholds after cochlear implantation. Complete or partial preservation of residual hearing was obtained in 21.4 and 21.7?% in the SMA and MPTA group, respectively. No statistical differences could be found between the SMA and MPTA group (p?=?0.96; Chi-square test). The SMA technique is correlated with a similar degree of hearing loss after cochlear implantation compared to the MPTA technique. However, both techniques were not able to conserve a measurable amount of hearing in patients with a substantial degree of residual hearing. Therefore, both surgical techniques need to be refined for patients in which residual acoustical hearing is pursued.