4.1 Article

Long-term follow-up of late onset vestibular complaints in patients with cochlear implant

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 135, 期 12, 页码 1245-1252

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2015.1072874

关键词

Cochlear implant; vestibular symptoms; instability; vertigo; hearing loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conclusion: Patients with cochlear implants should be treated no differently than non-implanted patients with similar symptomatology. Objectives: To describe the spectrum of symptomatology, treatment, and long-term follow-up of patients with cochlear implant and vestibular complaints. Methods: This retrospective study included 25 patients with late onset vestibular complaints (more than 1 month post-implantation). Each patient underwent an extensive interrogatory and physical exam with ancillary test to complete a diagnosis. Treatment was given according to this and all patients followed a vestibular rehabilitation program. Results: The total population was 72% male and 28% female, median age was 58 years; minimal follow-up was 9 months (mean = 51, median = 34). Cochleostomy was performed in eight cases and round window insertion was performed in 19 (two patients were removed from each group in the analysis due to their bilateral implantation under a different approach). The mean time from implant to vestibular symptoms was 53 months, median = 32; a Kaplan Meier graphic showed the round window approach has faster onset of symptoms with statistical significance (p = 0.020). The most common complaint was instability in all patients and after both surgical approaches. No difference in symptoms was found with a Kruskall Wallis test except for vertigo spells (more common in the round window approach). In 12 patients the symptomatology was attributed to the implanted side. In the long-term follow-up a relatively high number of patients (20/25) recovered with standard treatment, suggesting the presence of the implant is not associated with poor recovery prognosis.

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

4.1
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