Successful Hearing Preservation After Reimplantation of a Failed Hybrid Cochlear Implant

Dunn, Camille; Etler, Christine P.; Hansen, Marlan R.; Gantz, Bruce J.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000867

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, we now also consider a range of demographic factors during the evaluation process that we have linked to residual HL, such as gender, etiology of HL, tobacco use—and medical comorbidities such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and cardiovascular disease . Regardless of all of these possible links to causes of HL, we have reported that the inner ear might be more robust than once thought because we were able to remove a failed Hybrid S12 (10 mm; Cochlear) implant and replace it with the Hybrid L24 (16 mm; Cochlear), and maintained residual hearing through these two separate procedures …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…It appears that shorter arrays preserve more hearing than longer ones . It also appears that the inner ear might be more robust than once thought . Strategies have been designed to reduce insertion trauma during implantation of the device, but there appears to be progressive acoustic HL that occurs typically between 1 and 6 months following activation of the device …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,[29][30][31] It also appears that the inner ear might be more robust than once thought. 32 Strategies have been designed to reduce insertion trauma during implantation of the device, but there appears to be progressive acoustic HL that occurs typically between 1 and 6 months following activation of the device. 5 Few studies have investigated the longitudinal stability of residual hearing and speech perception in individuals implanted with a hybrid CI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Acoustic plus electric speech processing: Long‐term results

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acoustic plus electric speech processing: Long‐term results

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specific audiometric thresholds and selection criteria can be found in Gantz, et al (this issue) [21]. Briefly, participants were required to have a sensorineural hearing loss with pure-tone average (PTA) between 70-90 dB HL from 125-1500 Hz and profound loss at higher frequencies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Music Perception of Adolescents Using Electroacoustic Hearing

Driscoll

Welhaven²,

Gfeller

et al. 2016

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Because acoustic hearing was lost following the revision surgery, only data up to the time of explantation are included. One individual retained acoustic hearing following explant of an S12 array and reimplantation with an L24 array (Dunn et al 2015). Thus, the data associated with both devices are included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective review explores delayed-onset hearing loss in 85 individuals receiving cochlear implants designed to preserve acoustic hearing at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between 2001 and 2015. Repeated measures of unaided behavioral audiometric thresholds, electrode impedance, and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) amplitude growth functions were used to characterize longitudinal changes in auditory status. Participants were grouped into two primary categories according to changes in unaided behavioral thresholds: (1) stable hearing or symmetrical hearing loss and (2) delayed loss of hearing in the implanted ear. Thirty-eight percent of this sample presented with delayed-onset hearing loss of various degrees and rates of change. Neither array type nor insertion approach (round window or cochleostomy) had a significant effect on prevalence. Electrode impedance increased abruptly for many individuals exhibiting precipitous hearing loss; the increase was often transient. The impedance increases were significantly larger than the impedance changes observed for individuals with stable or symmetrical hearing loss. Moreover, the impedance changes were associated with changes in behavioral thresholds for individuals with a precipitous drop in behavioral thresholds. These findings suggest a change in the electrode environment coincident with the change in auditory status. Changes in ECAP thresholds, growth function slopes, and suprathreshold amplitudes were not correlated with changes in behavioral thresholds, suggesting that neural responsiveness in the region excited by the implant is relatively stable. Further exploration into etiology of delayed-onset hearing loss post implantation is needed, with particular interest in mechanisms associated with changes in the intracochlear environment.

show abstract

Successful Hearing Preservation After Reimplantation of a Failed Hybrid Cochlear Implant

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

Acoustic plus electric speech processing: Long‐term results

Acoustic plus electric speech processing: Long‐term results

Music Perception of Adolescents Using Electroacoustic Hearing

Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About