PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15143765

[Current developments in cochlear implantation].

R Laszig·A Aschendorff·J Schipper·T Klenzner
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, cochlear implantation has become a well accepted treatment in patients suffering from hearing loss or congenital deafness. Results have been impressive,and indications for a cochlear implant have been extended continuously. Thanks to a sophisticated diagnostic procedure, optimization of the surgical technique, and the progression of interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of rehabilitation, the acceptance of cochlear implantation is growing significantly. The manufacturers of the devices are making great efforts to miniaturize the external components of the system, and new developments in electrode arrays, combined with new speech coding strategies, result in better speech understanding. The new developments in electrode design, however, are not necessarily improvements over recent years. Nevertheless, a very well functioning network of physicians, scientists, and manufacturers has acted and reacted in an outstanding manner to identify possible causes of post-implantation meningitis, have taken immediate counter measures and presented possibilities of prevention.

Explore related subjects

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHumansMeningitisProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureProsthesis-Related InfectionsEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Laszig, A Aschendorff, J Schipper, T Klenzner. 2004. [Current developments in cochlear implantation].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-004-1049-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first year of life: preliminary results].

BACKGROUND: The success of cochlear implants in children was followed by a stepwise reduction in age at time of surgery. As a result of newborn hearing-screening (NHS) and the reliable audiologic diagnostic procedure, the question is raised as to whether an implantation before the age of 1 year is effective and safe in terms of surgery and rehabilitation. METHOD AND PATIENTS: This retrospective study included 27 children implanted before the age of 1 year (Gr. 1) and 89 children implanted between the age of 1 and 2 years (Gr. 2). Patient related data were analysed for individual history, surgery, rehabilitation and speech understanding. RESULTS: The incidence of complications was not increased in Gr. 1. The fitting of a speech processor was effective and uneventful in all children. The development of hearing and speech understanding showed better results after 2 years in Gr. 1. This development is more obvious for absolute age and not to rehabilitation time. CONCLUSION: In order to achieve an optimal timing for the development of speech understanding, cochlear implantation should be performed before the age of 2 years. This study revealed no additional risks for children in Gr. 1, but the development of speech understanding was better. As a consequence, cochlear implantation should be considered for very young children with an identified bilateral profound hearing loss.

Cochlear Implantation↗
PubMed2005

Cochlear implant complications: utility of federal database in systematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the suitability of the Manufacturer User Facility and Distributor Experience (MAUDE) database (which is maintained by the Food and Drug Administration and has a mandatory reporting requirement) for systemic analysis of cochlear implant complications and treatments and, in so doing, analyze trends in cochlear implant complications for 2 periods, 2002 and pre-1998. DATA SOURCES: All events from 2002 and from before 1998 were considered. Events and action taken were categorized and tabulated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because there was no null hypothesis, statistical analysis (chi2) was only used in comparing the 2 time frames. CONCLUSIONS: Structural limitations of the database, in addition to disparate reporting quality, made systematic analysis difficult. It was noted that spontaneous device failure accounted for the greatest single number of adverse events for both 2002 and the pre-1998 period (267/654 [41%] and 74/129 [57%], respectively), confirming earlier studies. A statistically significant decrease in spontaneous device failure and a significant increase in infections from the pre-1998 period to 2002 was observed. Flap problems ranging from extrusion to infection that required explantation were less frequently reimplanted than other problems requiring explantation, such as device failure or trauma. We considered new directions, including close collaboration with the new MedSun reporting system and conclude that while a valuable resource for narrative data, the current structure of the MAUDE database is only modestly useful for analyzing trends in complications and cannot answer several crucial questions, including device type comparisons. We suggest changing the current report format to include patient age, duration of implant, presence of anatomical abnormalities, and details on spontaneous device failures.

Cochlear Implantation↗