International Journal of Otolaryngology

International Journal of Otolaryngology / 2013 / Article

Clinical Study | Open Access

Volume 2013 |Article ID 107186 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/107186

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, "Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation: UNICAMP Outcomes", International Journal of Otolaryngology, vol. 2013, Article ID 107186, 8 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/107186

Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation: UNICAMP Outcomes

Academic Editor: Peter S. Roland
Received25 Jul 2012
Revised06 Feb 2013
Accepted07 Feb 2013
Published17 Mar 2013

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 [24] and better hearing than enjoyed by unilateral CI-only users [15], especially in noisy environments [24, 69]. 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 (and thus the person’s residual hearing) during CI surgery. To this end, technology and “soft surgical” techniques have been—and are continuing to be—developed.

“Soft” surgery was first described by Lehnhardt and Laszig in 1994 [11] and multiple surgeons and their teams have since refined it [1216]. Electrode insertion is of utmost importance in atraumicity: the round window approach [15] has shown to cause minimal cochlear damage and is thus better for residual hearing preservation [4, 10].

Electrode design (shape, length, and bundle flexibility) is also critical to reducing cochlear trauma [1721]; both MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria) and Cochlear Limited (Sydney, Australia) have designed electrodes to meet this specific need. Focusing on MED-EL’s (formerly known as the ), as it is the electrode we used in our study, recently surgeons have used it to achieve partial or complete hearing preservation in 100% of their study subjects [10, 16]. Although such perfection is not always possible, regardless of the surgeon’s skill or the implanted device’s technical wizardry [22], it was our aim to preserve the residual hearing in each of the 6 subjects we implanted between March 2010 and October 2011.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Subjects

6 subjects (mean age 47 years) were implanted with MED-EL cochlear implants with FLEX24 electrodes. Study inclusion criteria were as follows: all subjects had to (1) be older than 18 years, (2) have sensorineural bilateral hearing loss with little or no benefit from HA (less than 40% of auditory discrimination in monosyllables), (3) have pure-tone thresholds of ≤60 dB hearing loss in at least 1 frequency between 250 and 500 Hz and of ≥80 dB in frequencies above 1000 Hz, (4) have had stable hearing loss for at least the past two years, and lastly (5) pass a psychological examination ensuring they had realistic expectations about the potential benefits of receiving a cochlear implant and/or using EAS (Table 1). All subjects underwent pure tone audiometry (PTA) and speech tests, pre- and postoperatively.


Subject numberAge at implantation (years)SexDuration of hearing loss (years)Insertion

163M5Round window
262M10Cochleostomy
340F10Round window
429M8Round window
542M20Round window
646M15Round window

2.2. Surgical Technique

We used the same surgical technique on all subjects. The technique, which we have named the UNICAMP approach, is a mastoidectomy approach. It is based on techniques developed in various otology centers.

2.3. Description of Surgical Technique

Patients were under general anesthesia, tracheal intubation, and placed in a supine position with their head turned to the contralateral side. The operative field was prepared through extensive shaving, cleaned with chlorhexidine 2%, and the attachment of the electrodes to monitor CN VII.

We used a micropore to isolate the operative field from the rest of the scalp and gave prophylaxis with cefazolin (50 mg/kg) intravenously during induction of anesthesia.(1)The main landmarks are marked: tip of the mastoid, temporal line, retroauricular incision line, area of the internal component, and area of the microphone with the help of an implant template;(2)antisepsis with 0.2% aqueous chlorhexidine, placement of sterile drapes and steri-drape 2; (3)rectilinear retroauricular incision and dissection along anatomical planes; preparation of a “cross” Palva flap (periosteal muscle) raising the four segments of the flap over the subperiosteal plane; (4)removal of small fragments of fascia and temporal muscle to occlude the cochleostomy;(5)simple mastoidectomy, identifying the lateral semicircular canal, the short ramus of the anvil, the posterior wall of the outer ear canal, the tegmen timpani, and the lateral sinus; gathering a small amount of bone dust;(6)thinning of the posterior wall of the outer ear canal, posterior tympanotomy, preservation of the incus buttress; (7)preparation of the receiver bed for the implant on the squamous portion of the temporal bone (well) using a specific implant template;(8)irrigation of the cavity with povidone-iodine (10% povidone-iodine/1% active iodine) for two minutes followed by abundant irrigation with lactated Ringer’s solution;(9)irrigation of the cavity with ciprofloxacin (4 mg/mL) for two minutes followed by irrigation with lactated Ringer’s solution;(10)intravenous administration of dexamethasone (8 mg) before approaching the inner ear via a cochleostomy or through the round window;(11)application of topical triamcinolone (40 mg/mL) over the round window; (12)opening the membrane of the round window; if this approach is impossible, the endosteum is opened by means of a cochleostomy;(13)positioning of the implant into the prior drilled bed;(14)Preparation of the fascia graft; making a pinhole central orifice to allow the electrode to pass snugly to be placed in the cochleostomy/round window site;(15)insertion of the electrode slowly and continuously during three minutes;(16)positioning the muscle graft around the electrode to seal the cochleostomy; placing bone dust to close the posterior tympanotomy;(17)positioning the ground electrode under the muscle-periosteum flap;(18)closure with Vicryl 3.0 sutures on the Palva flap planes and subcutaneous tissue; skin closure with Nylon 4.0;(19)cleaning of the patient and placing an external compressive dressing;(20)impedance testing, neural response telemetry (NRT), and a transorbital incidence radiograph are done to confirm the position of the intracochlear electrode.

The same surgeon and surgical team performed all six surgeries.

2.4. Audiometric Testing

All subjects had unaided pure-tone audiometry tests at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz (Figures 16). We used an AC30-SD25 audiometer, calibrated according to ISO 389/64.

To determine subjects’ residual hearing, we repeated the unaided pure-tone audiometry tests at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz three times: (1) at activation, (2) 6.5–7 months after activation, and (3) approximately 7 months after their previous test. We defined “residual hearing preservation” in three ways:(1)“total hearing preservation”: a postoperative unaided hearing loss of 0–10 dBs,(2)“partial hearing preservation”: a postoperative unaided hearing loss of >10 dB but leaving the subject with ≤80 dB hearing or better in at least one frequency between 250 and 1000 Hz,(3)“hearing preservation failure”: subject will not benefit from EAS because their unaided postoperative thresholds are >80 dB.

Lastly, to measure efficacy, all subjects had free field warble tone tests with EAS or CI-only (depending on their residual hearing) at the same postoperative intervals as were their unaided tests.

2.5. Speech Perception Tests

Preoperatively, all subjects took a speech perception test the same day as their implantation. We used a speech perception sentence test based on one developed by Bevilacqua et al. from several English language tests [23]. Subjects did the test with their hearing aids on, in a quiet place.

Postoperatively, all subjects repeated the speech perception test after at least 1 year of CI experience. Tests were done in subject’s best-aided condition: EAS or CI-only, depending on their postoperative residual hearing. The same audiologist conducted all the pre- and postoperative tests.

2.6. Subjective Ratings

When the subjects did their postoperative speech tests they were asked to rate the quality of their experience with EAS/a CI over the past year on a Likert scale scored 0 to 10. A score of 0 indicated the user regretted the intervention, would not recommend it to others, and felt he/she had been better off in the past with their hearing aids. A score of 10 indicated the user was completely satisfied with the intervention and would strongly recommend it.

2.7. Ethics

The institutional review board approved this study and all subjects gave written informed consent.

3. Results

All surgeries were uneventful. Although we planned to implant all subjects via their round window, we could not visualize subject 2’s round window and had to implant via cochleostomy. All subjects received an implant with a MED-EL electrode. At no frequency or test interval did any subject’s aided or unaided PTA score vary by more than 10 dB from their scores at the same frequency in either of the other 2 tests. For the sake of convenience, the graphs show their PTA scores at their last postoperative test (see Tables 2, 3, and Figure 7).


WhoDates (days since previous test)250 Hz500 Hz1 kHz2 kHz3 kHz4 kHz6 kHz8 kHz

Subject 1Preoperative: 01.06.201045708095105120120120
Activation: 22.09.20106590105105105120120120
Post-op 2: 05.04.2011 (195)6595100105110120120120
Post op-3: 14.12.2011 (253)6595100105110120120120

Subject 2Preoperative: 21.07.20105065100110115120120120
Activation: 22.09.201090105115120120120120120
Post-op 2: 13.04.2011 (203)90100110120120120120120
Post op-3: 07.12.2011 (238)90105115120120120120120

Subject 3Preoperative: 22.09.2010355060110110120120100
Activation: 13.12.2010115120120120120120120120
Post-op 2: 30.06.2011 (198)120120120120120120120120
Post op-3: 11.01.2012 (195)120120120120120120120120

Subject 4Preoperative: 26.04.20115565105120120120120100
Activation: 17.06.2011657595105120120120120
Post-op 2: 11.01.2012 (208)657090105120120120120
Post op-3: 18.09.2012 (251)657595105120120120120

Subject 5Preoperative: 11.10.20112080100105105120120120
Activation: 13.12.201150100110105105120120100
Post-op 2: 25.06.2012 (195)50105110105110120120100
Post op-3: 19.12.2012 (177)50100110105105120120100

Subject 6Preoperative: 18.10.20115045809095105105100
Activation: 13.12.2011808095105105110110100
Post-op 2: 18.07.2012 (218)858090105105110105100
Post op-3: 08.01.2013 (174)808095105105110110100


WhoDates (days since previous test)250 Hz500 Hz1 kHz2 kHz3 kHz4 kHz6 kHz8 kHz

Subject 1Activation: 22.09.20103535302540353545
Post-op 2: 05.04.2011 (195)3035352040303050
Post op-3: 14.12.2011 (253)3535302540353545

Subject 2Activation: 22.09.20104535353540406055
Post-op 2: 13.04.2011 (203)4040354040405550
Post op-3: 07.12.2011 (238)4535353540406055

Subject 3Activation: 13.12.20104560605040705555
Post-op 2: 30.06.2011 (198)4060555045806555
Post op-3: 11.01.2012 (195)4560605040705555

Subject 4Activation: 17.06.20115535556040605565
Post-op 2: 11.01.2012 (208)6525556540605560
Post op-3: 18.09.2012 (251)5535556040705565

Subject 5Activation: 13.12.20113060656060705570
Post-op 2: 25.06.2012 (195)3060605560706070
Post op-3: 19.12.2012 (177)3060656065705570

Subject 6Activation: 13.12.201145407075951005570
Post-op 2: 18.07.2012 (218)404065751001105570
Post op-3: 08.01.2013 (174)45407075951005570

All subjects’ speech perception was much better after implantation (see Figure 7).

3.1. Subject 1

He had suffered from idiopathic hearing loss for 5 years and had been using hearing aids for 2 years without benefit. He had also been treated with corticosteroids but experienced little improvement. He was fit with EAS with the CI cut-off frequency set at 500 Hz. His preoperative tinnitus was not eliminated by surgery but is now, according to the subject, no longer bothersome.

As you can see from his pre- and postoperative hearing test results, he derived real benefit from implantation. We achieved partial hearing preservation.

His speech perception test score improved from 0% preoperatively to 82% (with EAS) after 14 months CI experience.

He rated the quality of his experience a 9 on Likert scale, indicating he was very pleased with the intervention.

3.2. Subject 2

He had suffered from idiopathic hearing loss for 10 years and had been using hearing aids for 8 months without benefit. Unlike the other 5 subjects, he was implanted via cochleostomy instead of round window because we could not visualize the round window. The subject was fit with a CI only.

As you can see from his pre- and postoperative hearing test results, he derived real benefit from implantation. We, however, failed to preserve his residual hearing.

His speech test score improved from 0% preoperatively to 16% (with CI-only) after 14 months CI experience. We attribute this relatively poor speaking perception score to the fact that he (1) lost (or had stolen) his external component and so was without CI experience for approximately 11 of the 14.5 months between his activation and post-op speech test and (2) he missed audiological rehabilitation sessions.

He rated the quality of his experience a 6 on the Likert scale, indicating he was mildly pleased with the intervention.

3.3. Subject 3

She had suffered from idiopathic hearing loss for 10 years and had been using hearing aids for the past 6 years, with little benefit. Her preoperative tinnitus and dizziness were eliminated postoperatively. The subject was fit with a CI only.

As you can see from her pre- and postoperative hearing test results, she derived real benefit from implantation. We, however, failed to preserve her residual hearing.

Her speech test score improved from 28% preoperatively to 78% (with CI-only) after 13 months CI experience.

She rated the quality of her experience a 9 on the Likert scale, indicating she was very pleased with the intervention.

3.4. Subject 4

He had suffered from idiopathic hearing loss for 8 years and had been using hearing aids for 4 years in his right ear and 1 year in his left ear, with little benefit. He had also been treated with corticosteroids, with little improvement. The subject was fit with EAS with the CI cut-off frequency set at 700 Hz. His preoperative tinnitus and dizziness were eliminated postoperatively.

As you can see from his pre- and post-op hearing test results, he derived real benefit from implantation. We achieved total residual hearing preservation.

His speech test score improved from 8% preoperatively to 84% (with EAS on) after 15 months CI experience.

He rated the quality of his experience a 10 on the Likert scale, indicating he was extremely pleased with the intervention.

3.5. Subject 5

He had suffered idiopathic hearing loss for 15 years and had using hearing aids for 5 years, with little benefit. The subject was fit with EAS with the CI cut-off frequency set to 350 Hz. His preoperative tinnitus was eliminated postoperatively.

As you can see from the pre- and postoperative data, he derived real benefit from implantation. We achieved partial residual hearing preservation.

His speech test score improved from 0% preoperatively to 82% (with EAS on) after 12 months CI experience.

He rated the quality of his experience a 10 on the Likert scale, indicating he was extremely pleased with the intervention.

3.6. Subject 6

He had suffered from idiopathic hearing loss for 15 years and had been using hearing aids for 5 years, with little benefit. The subject was fit with EAS with the CI cut-off frequency set to 1 kHz.

As you can see from the pre- and postoperative hearing test results, he derived some benefit from implantation. We achieved partial residual hearing preservation.

His speech test score improved from 10% preoperatively to 40% (with EAS) after 13 months CI experience. Despite his relatively poor postoperative speech perception score, the audiologist reports that he is improving.

He rated the quality of his experience an 8 on the Likert scale, indicating he was very pleased with the intervention.

Some benefits of the good outcomes are represented by the individual speech tests of all subjects (Tables 2, 3, and Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Of our 6 subjects, 1 had total residual hearing preservation, 3 had partial residual hearing preservation, and 2 had total residual hearing loss: a residual hearing preservation success rate of 4/6. Looked at another way, postoperatively, 4 subjects will benefit from EAS and 2 subjects (2 and 3) are no longer partially deaf and thus no longer EAS candidates, although they enjoy better hearing from their CI than they had had from their HA before implantation. All subjects who actually had 1-year implant experience had greatly improved postoperative speech perception scores. 3 EAS users (subjects 1, 4, and 5) scored between 82% and 84%, similar to the results of previous studies [8, 24]. Subject 6 scored poorer, only 40% but is said to be improving. Subject 3, who was fitted CI only, improved from 28% pre-op to 78% after 13 months CI experience.

We demonstrated that cochlear implant surgery done with the aim of preserving residual hearing is highly beneficial to the hearing lives of the partially deaf—as evidenced in their extremely positive Likert scale responses—even when we fail to preserve their residual hearing. We, nonetheless, fell short of our lofty goal of 100% residual hearing preservation. We attribute this to 2 primary causes. Firstly, living in and working in Brazil, we have had very few EAS cases and less experience with hearing preservation surgery than do the surgeons whose results are featured in other articles. EAS was developed in Germany as recently as 1999 and, correspondingly, most experts come from Central Europe (Gstoettner, von Ilberg, Lenarz, Skarzynski to name a few).

We (UNICAMP) are the only team in Brazil—a nation of almost 200 million—that does hearing preservation surgeries like this. The surgical technique is difficult and we are confident that with experience, and better-suited cases, we will improve our success rate. Our results should be seen in this context: a regional beginning.

Secondly, we had limited access to suitable EAS candidates. All subjects had idiopathic hearing loss and not all of them were “true” EAS candidates. Subjects 1 and 5 had preoperative scores of 70 dB and 80 db, respectively, at 500 Hz, whereas the maximum indication for EAS is 60 dB at 500 Hz. We implanted them anyway—as other surgical teams have done [25, 26]—because they could still benefit from EAS. If they had been “true” EAS candidates, their postoperative hearing losses of 20–25 dB at 500 Hz might have appeared less severe.

Our residual hearing preservation results were below those of other similar studies. Skarzynski et al. [27] partially or totally preserved the hearing of 39/42 at 3 months and from 34/40 to 36/40 at 13 months after surgery. They used standard or electrodes and the hearing preservation round window technique they developed and described in 2007 [15]. Arnoldner et al., achieved 11/11 residual hearing preservation after a mean follow-up of 7.85 months. He used a round window or promontorium technique and electrodes [16]. Gstoettner et al. reported a success rate of 15/18 after up to 12 months after EAS fitting [8]. They used the Frankfurt surgical technique and MED-EL M-electrode.

Additionally, the provision of a CI decreased subjects’ tinnitus and dizziness. 4 subjects (1, 3, 4, and 5) suffered from preoperative tinnitus. Postoperatively, only subject 1 still had tinnitus, but he said it was “not too bad.” These results are consistent with past studies [2831], which found that CI implantation usually eliminates or reduces tinnitus. Subjects 3 and 4’s preoperative dizziness disappeared after surgery.

5. Conclusion

We strongly believe that EAS has an important place in the future of otology. While it is entering its teenage years in Central Europe, it is still in its infancy in Brazil. We hope our results will raise the profile of EAS here and hearing preservation surgery and help make it more common. Hopefully, with more experience and sufficient subjects, we—and other new teams—will soon be reporting residual hearing preservation results comparable to those of currently well-established surgeons.

Acknowledgments

The authors would to like to thank all the patients and their families, the UNICAMP cochlear implant group (audiologists, social work, nurse team, psychology, speech therapy and all the staff), their department (ENT, Head and Neck Surgery Department), and everyone at the MED-EL team who helped them.

References

  1. C. von Ilberg, J. Kiefer, J. Tillein et al., “Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss,” Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Its Related Specialties, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 334–340, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. J. Kiefer, M. Pok, O. Adunka et al., “Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 134–144, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Lorens, M. Polak, A. Piotrowska, and H. Skarzynski, “Outcomes of treatment of partial deafness with cochlear implantation: a DUET study,” Laryngoscope, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 288–294, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. W. Gstoettner, S. Helbig, C. Settevendemie, U. Baumann, J. Wagenblast, and C. Arnoldner, “A new electrode for residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: first clinical results,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 372–379, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. B. J. Gantz and C. W. Turner, “Combining acoustic and electrical hearing,” Laryngoscope, vol. 113, no. 10, pp. 1726–1730, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. J. Gantz, M. R. Hansen, C. W. Turner, J. J. Oleson, L. A. Reiss, and A. J. Parkinson, “Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 14, supplement 1, pp. 32–38, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. C. W. Turner, B. J. Gantz, C. Vidal, A. Behrens, and B. A. Henry, “Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 1729–1735, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. W. K. Gstoettner, P. van de Heyning, A. O'Connor et al., “Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 128, no. 9, pp. 968–975, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. R. H. Gifford, M. F. Dorman, A. J. Spahr, and S. A. McKarns, “Effect of Digital Frequency Compression (DFC) on speech recognition in candidates for combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS),” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1194–1202, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. T. Lenarz, T. Stöver, A. Buechner, A. Lesinski-Schiedat, J. Patrick, and J. Pesch, “Hearing conservation surgery using the hybrid-L electrode: results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 14, supplement 1, pp. 22–31, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. E. Lehnhardt and R. Laszig, “Specific surgical aspects of cochlear implant/soft surgery,” in Advances in Cochlear Implants, I. J. Hochmair-Desoyer and E. S. Hochmair, Eds., pp. 228–229, Manz, Vienna, Austria, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  12. J. Kiefer, W. Gstoettner, W. Baumgartner et al., “Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 272–280, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. B. J. Gantz, C. W. Turner, K. E. Gfeller, and M. W. Lowder, “Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing,” Laryngoscope, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 796–802, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. W. K. Gstoettner, S. Heibig, N. Maier, J. Kiefer, A. Radeloff, and O. F. Adunka, “Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of long-term hearing preservation,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. H. Skarzynski, A. Lorens, A. Piotrowska, and I. Anderson, “Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 41–48, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. C. Arnoldner, S. Helbig, J. Wagenblast et al., “Electric acoustic stimulation in patients with postlingual severe high-frequency hearing loss: clinical experience,” Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 67, pp. 116–124, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. O. Adunka, W. Gstoettner, M. Hambek, M. H. Unkelbach, A. Radeloff, and J. Kiefer, “Preservation of basal inner ear structures in cochlear implantation,” Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Its Related Specialties, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 306–312, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. O. Adunka, J. Kiefer, M. H. Unkelbach, T. Lehnert, and W. Gstoettner, “Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation,” Laryngoscope, vol. 114, no. 7, pp. 1237–1241, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. W. Gstoettner, J. Kiefer, W. D. Baumgartner, S. Pok, S. Peters, and O. Adunka, “Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 348–352, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. R. J. S. Briggs, M. Tykocinski, K. Stidham, and J. B. Roberson, “Cochleostomy site: implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 125, no. 8, pp. 870–876, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. R. J. S. Briggs, M. Tykocinski, J. Xu et al., “Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 11, supplement 1, pp. 42–48, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. C. A. von Ilberg, U. Baumann, J. Kiefer, J. Tillein, and O. F. Adunka, “Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 16, supplement 2, pp. 1–30, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. C. Bevilacqua, M. R. Banhara, E. A. da Costa, A. B. Vignoly, and K. F. Alvarenga, “The Brazilian Portuguese hearing in noise test,” International Journal of Audiology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 364–365, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. S. Helbig, P. van de Heyning, J. Kiefer et al., “Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI100 implant system using the FLEXEAS electrode array,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 585–595, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. Helbig, U. Baumann, M. Helbig, N. von Malsen-Waldkirch, and W. Gstoettner, “A new combined speech processor for electric and acoustic stimulation—eight months experience,” Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Its Related Specialties, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 359–365, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. C. Arnoldner, W. Gstoettner, D. Riss et al., “Residual hearing preservation using the suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation,” Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, vol. 123, no. 19-20, pp. 599–602, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. Skarzynski, A. Lorens, M. Zgoda, A. Piotrowska, P. H. Skarzynski, and A. Szkielkowska, “Atraumatic round window deep insertion of cochlear electrodes,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 131, no. 7, pp. 740–749, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. T. Pan, R. S. Tyler, H. Ji, C. Coelho, A. K. Gehringer, and S. A. Gogel, “Changes in the tinnitus handicap questionnaire after cochlear implantation,” American Journal of Audiology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 144–151, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. D. M. Baguley, “New insights into tinnitus in cochlear implant recipients,” Cochlear Implants International, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 31–36, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. A. Kleine-Punte, K. Vermeire, A. Hofkens, M. de Bodt, D. de Ridder, and P. van de Heyning, “Cochlear implantation as a durable tinnitus treatment in single-sided deafness,” Cochlear Implants International, vol. 12, supplement 1, pp. 26–29, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. M. Kompis, M. Pelizzone, N. Dillier, J. Allum, N. DeMin, and P. Senn, “Tinnitus before and after 6 months after cochlear implantation,” Audiology and Neurotology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 161–168, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2013 Guilherme Machado de Carvalho et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

2872 Views | 950 Downloads | 4 Citations
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.