Electro-Natural Stimulation in Partial Deafness Treatment of Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Long-Term Hearing Preservation Results

ORL ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 81 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 63-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henryk Skarzynski ◽  
Artur Lorens ◽  
Beata Dziendziel ◽  
Joanna J. Rajchel ◽  
Monika Matusiak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Natural Stimulation

Patterns of Long-term Hearing Loss in Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implant Surgery

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 478-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kavita Dedhia ◽  
Tina Worman ◽  
Margaret A. Meredith ◽  
Jay T. Rubinstein
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery

Dexamethasone delivery for hearing preservation in animal cochlear implant model: continuity, long-term release, and fast release rate

2020 ◽  
Vol 140 (9) ◽  
pp. 713-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Young Lee ◽  
Young Cheol Kim ◽  
Jongmoon Jang ◽  
Jae Yun Jung ◽  
Hongsoo Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Release Rate ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Fast Release

scholarly journals Current Research with Cochlear Implants at Arizona State University

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 385-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Anthony Spahr ◽  
Rene H. Gifford ◽  
Sarah Cook ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
State University ◽  
Arizona State University ◽  
Listening Environments

In this article we review, and discuss the clinical implications of, five projects currently underway in the Cochlear Implant Laboratory at Arizona State University. The projects are (1) norming the AzBio sentence test, (2) comparing the performance of bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients in realistic listening environments, (3) accounting for the benefit provided to bimodal patients by low-frequency acoustic stimulation, (4) assessing localization by bilateral hearing aid patients and the implications of that work for hearing preservation patients, and (5) studying heart rate variability as a possible measure for quantifying the stress of listening via an implant.The long-term goals of the laboratory are to improve the performance of patients fit with cochlear implants and to understand the mechanisms, physiological or electronic, that underlie changes in performance. We began our work with cochlear implant patients in the mid-1980s and received our first grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for work with implanted patients in 1989. Since that date our work with cochlear implant patients has been funded continuously by the NIH. In this report we describe some of the research currently being conducted in our laboratory.

Long-term Hearing Preservation in Electric Acoustic Cochlear Implant Candidates

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Mathias Sprinzl ◽  
Philipp Schoerg ◽  
Stefan Herwig Edlinger ◽  
Astrid Magele
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Preservation

Long-term results of hearing preservation cochlear implant surgery in patients with residual low frequency hearing

2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Moteki ◽  
Shin-ya Nishio ◽  
Maiko Miyagawa ◽  
Keita Tsukada ◽  
Satoshi Iwasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery

Can You Hear Me Now? Long-Term Hearing Preservation in Intracanalicular Vestibular Schwannoma

Skull Base ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Haines ◽  
Samuel Levine ◽  
Scott Turner
Keyword(s):  
Vestibular Schwannoma ◽  
Hearing Preservation

Long-Term Follow-Up of Early Cochlear Implant Device Activation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Stefanie Bruschke ◽  
Uwe Baumann ◽  
Timo Stöver
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Control Group ◽  
First Year ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: The cochlear implant (CI) is a standard procedure for the treatment of patients with severe to profound hearing loss. In the past, a standard healing period of 3–6 weeks occurred after CI surgery before the sound processor was initially activated. Advancements of surgical techniques and instruments allow an earlier initial activation of the processor within 14 days after surgery. Objective: Evaluation of the early CI device activation after CI surgery within 14 days, comparison to the first activation after 4–6 weeks, and assessment of the feasibility and safety of the early fitting over a 12 month observation period were the objectives of this study. Method: In a prospective study, 127 patients scheduled for CI surgery were divided into early fitting group (EF, n = 67) and control group (CG, n = 60). Individual questionnaires were used to evaluate medical and technical outcomes of the EF. Medical side effects, speech recognition, and follow-up effort were compared with the CG within the first year after CI surgery. Results: The early fitting was feasible in 97% of the EF patients. In the EF, the processor was activated 25 days earlier than in the CG. No major complications were observed in either group. At the follow-up appointments, side effects such as pain and balance problems occurred with comparable frequency in both groups. At initial fitting, the EF showed a significantly higher incidence of medical minor complications (p < 0.05). When developing speech recognition within the first year of CI use, no difference was observed. Furthermore, the follow-up effort within the first year after CI surgery was comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Early fitting of the sound processor is a feasible and safe procedure with comparable follow-up effort. Although more early minor complications were observed in the EF, there were no long-term wound healing problems caused by the early fitting. Regular inspection of the magnet strength is recommended as part of the CI follow-up since postoperative wound swelling must be expected. The early fitting procedure enabled a clear reduction in the waiting time between CI surgery and initial sound processor activation.

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till F. Jakob ◽  
Iva Speck ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Manuel C. Ketterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

scholarly journals Successful Hearing Preservation After Reimplantation of a Failed Hybrid Cochlear Implant

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 1628-1632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Christine Etler ◽  
Marlan Hansen ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Preservation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document