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

Residual hearing preservation using the suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Cochlear implants for patients with high-frequency hearing loss and some low-frequency hearing are gaining popularity as a treatment option.
  • Five patients were assessed for their ability to retain hearing after getting cochlear implants using the suprameatal approach, with a follow-up period averaging around 35.6 months.
  • Results indicated that while some patients maintained partial hearing, others lost their remaining hearing completely; the study suggests this method can preserve some hearing but needs further investigation compared to traditional surgical approaches.

Article Abstract

Objective: Cochlear implantation of patients with high-frequency hearing loss and residual low-frequency hearing has become a new treatment standard within the last years. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation using the suprameatal approach.

Methods: Five patients (mean age 48.2 years) who were supplied with Med El (Combi 40+, Pulsar) cochlear implants and various different electrodes (Custom made, Flex soft, Flex EAS) were evaluated for residual hearing preservation after a mean follow-up time of 35.6 months (range 24 to 77 months).

Results: Three patients showed partial hearing preservation, whereas 2 patients experienced a complete loss of residual hearing.

Conclusion: Although hearing preservation rates in this series of patients operated on using the suprameatal approach were inferior as compared with a series using the standard mastoidectomy approach, this study shows that it is in fact possible to preserve residual hearing using a non-mastoidectomy surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Nevertheless, more experience is necessary to answer the question whether this technique can be thoroughly recommended in cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00508-011-0043-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hearing preservation
20
cochlear implantation
20
residual hearing
12
suprameatal approach
8
loss residual
8
implantation electric-acoustic
8
electric-acoustic stimulation
8
hearing
7
cochlear
6
residual
5

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!