Search Results: 1 - 10 of 100 matches for " "
All listed articles are free for downloading (OA Articles)
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item
M.H. Khalessi,S. Abdi,M.T. Khorsandi
Acta Medica Iranica , 1996,
Abstract: Deafness has been considered a non - resolving problem until the invention of cochlear implantation (CI). We are reporting the pre- and post-operative results of 14 patients underwent CI, for the first time in Iran, at the cochlear implantation Clinic of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Four of our patients were able to hold a telephone conversation without difficulty 3 months post-operatively and the rest achieved considerable scores on audiologic tests and a remarkable improvement over 9 month interval between the two sets of tests. Also we have addressed the dramatic improvement in the quality of life of these patients in this paper as well as the results of promontory stimulation and audiometry.
Experiences with bimodal hearing and bilateral cochlear implantation in the elderly  [cached]
E.M. Schedlbauer,R. G?tze,S. Scholz,I. Todt
Audiology Research , 2011, DOI: 10.4081/audiores.2011.e23
Abstract: With the geriatric population being the fastest growing segment of our society the number of elderly people with different levels of hearing impairments is increasing. According to the German Society of Hearing Impaired there are concerned 37% of the 60-69-year-old and 54% of the over 70-year-old. Furthermore the needs of the elderly are changing with augmented social activity and agility compared to former times: 80 is the new 70. After initial concerns about poor audiologic performance and added peri- and postoperative risks because of comorbidities, cochlear implantation is becoming more and more the method of choice also for postlingually deaf people of higher age. With the demographic shift there can be observed a trend reversal: the proportion of implantees is sliding from the young to the senior and duration of deafness at the time of implantation is declining (Battmer 2010). It is therefore necessary to investigate the impact of cochlear implantation on audiologic performance and quality of life in this growing age group.
Cochlear Implantation after Kidney Transplantation
B Hasehmi,H Bahrani Fard,Z Zandifra
International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine , 2012,
Abstract: Patients with chronic renal failure may develop sensorineural hearing loss. Cochlear implantation has rarely done after organ transplantation. Herein, we report on a 33-year-old kidney transplantation recipient who underwent cochlear implantation for her progressive sensorineural hearing loss in Khalili Hospital Cochlear Implant Center, affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The implantation was done successfully with no complications. Cochlear implantation may be an appropriate therapeutic option for sensorineural hearing loss caused by chronic renal failure.
M. T. Khorsandi,H. Borghei,?S. Abdi
Acta Medica Iranica , 1999,
Abstract: 7 'innitus is a frequent complaint in patients with sensorineural deafness. Different reports suggest that electrical stimulation caused by cochlear implant devices "upn"ises tinnitus to a considerable degree. In a longitudinal -.mdv we have evaluated the severity and duration of tinnitus in both ears of J 7 cochlear implant patients before and after operation. Severity of tinnitus was reduced in both implanted and not implanted ears after the implantation (P=0.003 and p - 0.00-1 respectively). Duration of tinnitus, however, was not affected significantly. No significant difference in tinnitus suppression was observed between the implanted and not implanted ears. This might be attributed to both the electrical stimulation caused by the device and the psychogenic stability provided by return to the world of sound.
Surgical Complications of Cochlear Implantation
Basir Hashemi,Akbar Bayat,Tayebe Kazemei
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences , 2010,
Abstract: Cochlear implantation is a method used for the treatment ofpatients with profound hearing loss. This procedure may theaccompanied by some major or minor complications. Weevaluated the surgical complications of cochlear implantationin Fars province (south of Iran). A total of 150 patients withcochlear implantation were enrolled in the present study. Mostof the patients were pre-lingual children and most of our deviceswere nucleus prosthesis. We had three device failuresand four major complications, including one misplaced electrode,one case of meningitis, one case of foreign body reactionto suture and one case with extensive hematoma. Thesecomplications were managed successfully by surgical interventionor re-implantation. Facial nerve damage or woundbreakdown was not seen. Minor complications including smallhematoma, edema, stitch infection and dizziness were found in15 cases, which were managed medically. In our center, therate of minor complications was comparable to other centersin the world. But the rate of major surgical complications waslower than other centers.
Cochlear implantation at the ear, nose and throat clinic of the Clinical center of Vojvodina  [PDF]
Komazec Zoran,Dankuc Dragan,Vla?ki Ljiljana,Lemaji?-Komazec Slobodanka
Medicinski Pregled , 2007, DOI: 10.2298/mpns0712643k
Abstract: Introduction. A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that can provide a sense of sound to a person who is profoundly deaf or severely hard-of-hearing. Cochlear implants bypass the damaged hearing systems and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound. Hearing through a cochlear implant differs from normal hearing and takes time to learn or relearn. Cochlear implantations have been performed at the ENT Clinic in Novi Sad since 2002. The aim of this retrospective investigation was to evaluate performance of cochlear implanted patients in regard to the age of hearing loss identification, age at implantation, as well as complications. Material and Methods. During a 5-year period (2002-2007), 45 patients underwent cochlear implantation (46 implants) at the ENT Clinic in Novi Sad. Only four patients were postlingually deaf adults. Forty-one implanted patients were children with a mean age at implantation of 42.2 months (range: 2 to 8 years). Out of these patients, 28 (68.2%) had congenital deafness of unknown cause. The commonest known cause was meningitis, found in 4 (9.7%) patients, followed by use of ototoxic drugs and hereditary deafness. Etiological factors included: postnatal hypoxia, intracranial hemorrhage, pre term birth, cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy, middle ear cholesteatoma, as well as sudden bilateral deafness. The time span between diagnosis of hearing loss and implantation was 34.6 months in 2002 and only 10 months in 2007. Results. 6 (13%) patients presented with complications. There were 4 major, and two minor complications. The following complications were noted: ossified cochlea which required reoperation, unsuccessful operation in a patient with Down syndrome, facial tics, temporary facial weakness and ataxia. Five out of six complications were successfully resolved. Conclusion. New, more sophisticated audiological evaluation is essential to shorten the time for diagnosing hearing impairment. The results of the investigation performed at the Cochlear Implantation Center of the ENT Clinic in Novi Sad show that cochlear implantation is an effective procedure which should be continued.
Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 2 and Patients with Vestibular Schwannoma in the Only Hearing Ear  [PDF]
Erika Celis-Aguilar,Luis Lassaletta,Javier Gavilán
International Journal of Otolaryngology , 2012, DOI: 10.1155/2012/157497
Abstract: Cochlear implants are a new surgical option in the hearing rehabilitation of patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) and patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS) in the only hearing ear. Auditory brainstem implant (ABI) has been the standard surgical treatment for these patients. We performed a literature review of patients with NF2 and patients with VS in the only hearing ear. Cochlear implantation (CI) provided some auditory benefit in all patients. Preservation of cochlear nerve integrity is crucial after VS resection. Results ranged from environmental sound awareness to excellent benefit with telephone use. Promontory stimulation is recommended although not crucial. MRI can be performed safely in cochlear implanted patients.
Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation: UNICAMP Outcomes  [PDF]
Guilherme Machado de Carvalho,Alexandre C. Guimaraes,Alexandre S. M. Duarte,Eder B. Muranaka,Marcelo N. Soki,Renata S. Zanotello Martins,Walter A. Bianchini,Jorge R. Paschoal,Arthur M. Castilho
International Journal of Otolaryngology , 2013, DOI: 10.1155/2013/107186
Abstract: Background. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is an excellent choice for people with residual hearing in low frequencies but not high frequencies and who derive insufficient benefit from hearing aids. For EAS to be effective, subjects' residual hearing must be preserved during cochlear implant (CI) surgery. Methods. We implanted 6 subjects with a CI. We used a special surgical technique and an electrode designed to be atraumatic. Subjects' rates of residual hearing preservation were measured 3 times postoperatively, lastly after at least a year of implant experience. Subjects' aided speech perception was tested pre- and postoperatively with a sentence test in quiet. Subjects' subjective responses assessed after a year of EAS or CI experience. Results. 4 subjects had total or partial residual hearing preservation; 2 subjects had total residual hearing loss. All subjects' hearing and speech perception benefited from cochlear implantation. CI diminished or eliminated tinnitus in all 4 subjects who had it preoperatively. 5 subjects reported great satisfaction with their new device. Conclusions. When we have more experience with our surgical technique we are confident we will be able to report increased rates of residual hearing preservation. Hopefully, our study will raise the profile of EAS in Brazil and Latin/South America. 1. Introduction Just over a decade ago people with sensorineural hearing loss had 2 main hearing (re)habilitation options: (1) a hearing aid (HA) if they had mild to moderate hearing loss and (2) a cochlear implant (CI) if they had severe to profound hearing loss. These 2 device options improved most users’ hearing. However, people who could hear in the low frequencies (up to 1000?Hz) but not the medium and high frequencies—the downward or “ski slope” audiogram—had too much high frequency hearing loss to benefit from their hearing aid(s) but were not CI candidates because surgeons feared the surgery would destroy their residual hearing. A solution for such people is electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), a concept developed by von Ilberg and colleagues in 1999 [1]. EAS provides synergistic unilateral acoustic (via the HA) and electrical (via the CI) stimulation and provides its users with better hearing than they had had with their HA or HAs [2–4] and better hearing than enjoyed by unilateral CI-only users [1–5], especially in noisy environments [2–4, 6–9]. EAS also provides better sound quality and more natural hearing than unilateral CIs or HAs [4, 10]. These benefits are, however, only possible if surgeons do not damage the cochlea
Cortical Plasticity after Cochlear Implantation  [PDF]
B. Petersen,A. Gjedde,M. Wallentin,P. Vuust
Neural Plasticity , 2013, DOI: 10.1155/2013/318521
Abstract: The most dramatic progress in the restoration of hearing takes place in the first months after cochlear implantation. To map the brain activity underlying this process, we used positron emission tomography at three time points: within 14 days, three months, and six months after switch-on. Fifteen recently implanted adult implant recipients listened to running speech or speech-like noise in four sequential PET sessions at each milestone. CI listeners with postlingual hearing loss showed differential activation of left superior temporal gyrus during speech and speech-like stimuli, unlike CI listeners with prelingual hearing loss. Furthermore, Broca’s area was activated as an effect of time, but only in CI listeners with postlingual hearing loss. The study demonstrates that adaptation to the cochlear implant is highly related to the history of hearing loss. Speech processing in patients whose hearing loss occurred after the acquisition of language involves brain areas associated with speech comprehension, which is not the case for patients whose hearing loss occurred before the acquisition of language. Finally, the findings confirm the key role of Broca’s area in restoration of speech perception, but only in individuals in whom Broca’s area has been active prior to the loss of hearing. 1. Introduction The cochlear implant (CI) transforms acoustic signals from the environment into electric impulses, which are then used to stimulate intact fibers of the auditory nerve. With this treatment, individuals with profound hearing loss (HL) are given the opportunity to gain or regain the sense of hearing. Current technology and speech processing strategies allow many CI recipients to achieve impressive accuracy in open-set speech recognition, and the CI is arguably the most effective neural prosthesis ever developed [1–3]. However, the success of the outcome depends both on duration of deafness prior to implantation [4, 5] and on the onset of deafness before (prelingually) [4–7] or after (postlingually) [8] critical stages in the acquisition of language. In many cases, the greatest gains of performance occur in the first three months of use [9–11]. The dramatic improvements following implantation not only demonstrate the efficiency of the CI technology, but also point to the role of cortical plasticity as a means to reactivate brain function. Plasticity is a term used to describe the reorganization of the central nervous system by means of synaptic changes and rewiring of neural circuits. In cases of cochlear implantation, neural plasticity associated with
Preliminary speech recognition results after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral hearing loss: a case series
Yvonne Stelzig, Roland Jacob, Joachim Mueller
Journal of Medical Case Reports , 2011, DOI: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-343
Abstract: Four Caucasian German men, two aged 48 and the others aged 51 and 57 years old, with post-lingual unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing on the contralateral side were implanted with a cochlear implant. All our patients were members of the German army. Before and after implantation, they were given a battery of speech tests in different hearing conditions to assess the effect of unilateral cochlear implantation on speech understanding in noise conditions. Test results showed that all patients benefited from unilateral cochlear implantation, particularly in terms of speech understanding in noise conditions.Unilateral cochlear implantation might be a successful treatment method for patients with unilateral hearing loss not benefiting from alternative treatment options. The results of this case report open up the field of cochlear implantation for expanded criteria and new areas of research.Many individuals with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) have genuine difficulties in understanding speech in noise conditions. Despite these impediments, the impact of a complete UHL is often minimized by the presence of (near) normal hearing (NH) on the contralateral side. However, different studies have shown that the normal hearing capabilities of these individuals do not compensate for their UHL [1]. Lin et al. [2] addressed the auditory deficits of patients with UHL. They reported that monaural patients had the greatest difficulties when the sound or source of speech was localized on the hearing impaired side, presumably due to the reduced exploitation of binaural processes.Although it is recognized that patients with UHL encounter problems in speech recognition in noise conditions or sound localization, only very few treatment methods are available to these patients [1]. Currently, they are generally treated with contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids [3] or bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) implants [4]. However, various studies have demonstrated a poor user sati
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item

Copyright © 2008-2017 Open Access Library. All rights reserved.