PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Annals of Otology and Neurotology 2018; 01(01): 018-022
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608752
Original Article
Indian Society of Otology

Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: Observations in Poor Performers

Philipp Mittmann
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Germany
,
A. Ernst
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Germany
,
S. Scholz
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Germany
,
R. D. Battmer
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Germany
,
I. Todt
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Germany
› Institutsangaben Funding No funding was available for this study.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
09. Januar 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Patients with single-sided deafness can nowadays receive a cochlear implant. A majority of these patients are well adapted and benefit from the implant. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reasons for poor performance in a group of patients with single-sided deafness, who received a cochlear implant.

Design A total of 65 patients were enrolled into a retrospective case series. Seven poor performers were present in the group. Freiburger monosyllabics, localization testing, and radiologic images were evaluated.

Results Localization testing showed the absence of lateralization ability in three patients, whereas the Freiburger monosyllabic word scores improved in three patients. One patient had no speech perception after 1 year of rehabilitation. Findings of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed cerebral involvement in five patients.

Conclusion Various factors influence the outcome in unilateral cochlear implantation in patients with single-sided deafness. These reasons may be preoperative, operative, or postoperative. Nevertheless, the majority of patients benefit from these implants.

Keywords

single-sided deafness - cochlear implant - sound localization
 

  • References

  • 1 Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R. et al. Comparison of pseudo-binaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Arndt S, Prosse S, Laszig R, Wesarg T, Aschendorff A, Hassepass F. Cochlear implantation in children with single-sided deafness: does aetiology and duration of deafness matter?. Audiol Neurootol 2015; 20 (Suppl. 01) 21-30
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Brown KD, Balkany TJ. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 15 (05) 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Vermeire K, Van de Heyning P. Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol 2009; 14 (03) 163-171
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Friedmann DR, Ahmed OH, McMenomey SO, Shapiro WH, Waltzman SB, Roland Jr. JT. Single-sided deafness cochlear implantation: candidacy, evaluation, and outcomes in children and adults. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e154-e160
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Zhang T, Spahr AJ, Dorman MF. Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (02) 195-201
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Carrera E, Tononi G. Diaschisis: past, present, future. Brain 2014; 137 Pt 9 2408-2422
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Campo P, Garrido MI, Moran RJ. et al. Remote effects of hippocampal sclerosis on effective connectivity during working memory encoding: a case of connectional diaschisis?. Cereb Cortex 2012; 22 (06) 1225-1236
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lassig AA, Zwolan TA, Telian SA. Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26 (04) 624-634
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR. et al. In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2007; 197: 2-24
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Isaacson B, Booth T, Kutz Jr JW, Lee KH, Roland PS. Labyrinthitis ossificans: how accurate is MRI in predicting cochlear obstruction?. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140 (05) 692-696
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Liu CC, Sweeney M, Booth TN. et al. The impact of postmeningitic labyrinthitis ossificans on speech performance after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (10) 1633-1637
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Todt I, Rademacher G, Mittmann P, Wagner J, Mutze S, Ernst A. MRI Artifacts and cochlear implant positioning at 3 T in vivo. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (06) 972-976
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Olze H, Szczepek AJ, Haupt H, Zirke N, Graebel S, Mazurek B. The impact of cochlear implantation on tinnitus, stress and quality of life in postlingually deafened patients. Audiol Neurootol 2012; 17 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Blasco MA, Redleaf MI. Cochlear implantation in unilateral sudden deafness improves tinnitus and speech comprehension: meta-analysis and systematic review. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (08) 1426-1432
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar