4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Endoscopic-Assisted Cochlear Implantation in Children with Malformed Ears

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 161, 期 4, 页码 688-693

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0194599819844493

关键词

endoscopic ear surgery; ear malformations; round window; cochlear implantation; children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Complex middle and inner ear malformations are considered an important limitation for cochlear implant (CI) with traditional microscopic techniques. The aim of the present study is to describe the results of the endoscopic-assisted CI procedure in children with malformed ears. Study Design Case series with chart review of consecutive patients. Setting Two tertiary referral centers: University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Modena, Italy. Subjects and Methods In total, 25 children underwent endoscopic-assisted cochlear implantation between January 2013 and January 2018. The audiologic and neuroradiologic assessment showed profound hearing loss and malformation of the middle and inner ear in all children. A complete review of anatomic features, surgical results, and audiologic outcomes was performed. The surgical technique is described step-by-step, and the outcomes are detailed. Results All patients (mean age, 3.6 years; range, 2.8-9 years) underwent a transattical/endoscopic-assisted CI procedure. All children showed varying degrees of auditory benefit, as measured by routine audiometry, speech perception tests, and Categories of Auditory Performance scores (mean, 6). No immediate or late postoperative complications were noted. Conclusion The endoscopic-assisted approach proved to be successful in cochlear implantation. The direct visualization and magnification allow (1) exploration of the tympanic cavity; (2) confirmation of all anatomic features, with strict control of the course of the facial nerve, round window area, and inner ear; and (3) performance of the cochleostomy with adequate insertion of the array.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据