A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Auditory brainstem implant as a salvage treatment after unsuccessful cochlear implantation. | LitMetric

Objective: The present article investigates on an individual basis the performance achieved with the auditory brainstem implant in patients who had been treated unsuccessfully with a cochlear implant.

Study Design: An intrasubject comparison between results achieved with the cochlear implant and the auditory brainstem implant is reported.

Setting: Tertiary referral care.

Patients: Five subjects were fitted with an auditory brainstem implant in our department because of the poor results achieved with cochlear implants. Two were children, one with bilateral cochlear nerve aplasia and one suffering from auditory neuropathy. Three were adults with complete cochlear ossification.

Intervention: A retrosigmoid approach was used in all subjects. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses and neural response telemetry were used to monitor electrode positioning.

Results: No complications were observed due to implantation surgery or related to activation or long-term use of the auditory brainstem implant. Auditory sensations were induced in all patients with varying numbers of electrodes (from 9-16). In all three adults, the cochlear implant did not allow either word/sentence discrimination or speech tracking, whereas the auditory brainstem implant permitted discrimination of two- or three-syllable words with scores from 85 to 100%. In the two adults with a follow-up of 5 and 6 months after auditory brainstem implant activation, the open-set sentence recognition scores (auditory-only mode) were 70% and 100%, respectively, and the speech-tracking scores were 27 and 40 words/min, respectively. One patient with a follow-up of only 3 months scored 0% in both sentence recognition and speech tracking. The two children who had achieved no hearing ability with the cochlear implant were already able to detect sounds and words as early as 2 months after activation of the auditory brainstem implant and are showing progressive improvement in their performance.

Conclusion: Auditory brainstem implantation may be a very powerful rehabilitative treatment after cochlear implant failure. The possibility of using the auditory brainstem implant as first-choice therapy in some categories of deaf patients (e.g., subjects with auditory neuropathy or cochlear ossification) who are currently treated with cochlear implantation is discussed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200407000-00016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

auditory brainstem
44
brainstem implant
36
cochlear implant
16
auditory
14
implant
13
cochlear
11
brainstem
10
cochlear implantation
8
achieved cochlear
8
implant auditory
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!