PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15891646

Ventilation tubes and cochlear implants: what do we do?

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine current practice management with respect to ventilation tubes and cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire. SETTING: All members of the American Neurotology Society were sent questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Members were asked a series of questions including how they deal with ventilation tubes before cochlear implantation, how they manage serous otitis media in patients undergoing cochlear implantation, and how they manage otitis prone children with cochlear implants. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty members returned questionnaires. Surgeons who replied perform an average of 25 implants per year: 15 in adults and 10 in children. Analysis of the data revealed a wide practice variation between surgeons. Fifty-six percent of surgeons will place a cochlear implant in a patient with a clean, dry ventilation tube in place. More than half the surgeons will place a ventilation tube in a child with serous otitis media, let the ear settle down, and perform the cochlear implant at a second operation. Wide variation in the management of otitis prone children with cochlear implants exists with respect to placement of ventilation tubes. Only 5% of surgeons reported any complications with cochlear implants that they attributed to ventilation tubes. There were a number who suggested their practice had changed since the recent identification of issues involving meningitis in implantees. CONCLUSION: Wide practice variation exists with the management of ventilation tubes in cochlear implant patients. On the basis of the results of this survey, it is acceptable to place cochlear implants in patients with clean, dry ventilation tubes. It also acceptable to place ventilation tubes in otitis prone children with cochlear implants. Despite theoretic concerns, the reported incidence of complications is low.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard J Kennedy, Clough Shelton. 2005. Ventilation tubes and cochlear implants: what do we do?. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000169792.30330.18

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral deep brain stimulators.

OBJECTIVE: We report the case of a patient successfully implanted with a Nucleus Contour cochlear implant after placement of a deep brain stimulator for Parkinson disease. METHODS: The authors conducted a case report and literature review. RESULTS: Successful hookup and mapping of the device was performed 1 month after implantation without evidence of aberrant activity of the deep brain stimulators. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of successful implantation of both a cochlear implant and a deep brain stimulator in the same patient. We have outlined one approach to avoiding detrimental interactions between cochlear implant and deep brain stimulator devices.

Cochlear Implantation↗

[Measurement of skull thickness by ultrasound].

BACKGROUND: The presurgical diagnostic for measurement of skull thickness for implantations of epithesis or bone anchored hearing aids is limited on computed tomography (CT) of petrosal bone up to now. Testing of ultrasound for measurement of skull thickness is the aim of our study . MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 patients has been included, which had got a computed tomography of nasal sinus, skull or petrosal bone. The potential localisations of implantations have been measured by 3D-reconstruction of computed tomography. The results have been statistical compared by sonographic investigations (7.5 MHz Soundhead) at the same localisation. RESULTS: The mean skull thickness has been 5,2 mm in computed tomography. Comparison has described a mean skull thickness of 4,2 mm in sonography. Statistical comparison has shown that ultrasound has been measured statistical significant too small. CONCLUSIONS: The skull thickness can be described and measured by sonography. However mean skull thickness has been measured statistical significant too small. In spite of this, conclusions relating to presurgical diagnostic, for instance for the implantation of epithesis and bone anchored hearing aids, can be drawn by sonographic data.

Cochlear Implantation↗

Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: Criteria for paediatric cochlear implant candidacy continue to evolve, as research indicates an increasingly broad range of children for whom the procedure can produce benefit. Children with difficulties in addition to their deafness, or global developmental delay, are not routinely excluded. The aim of this study is to explore the association between developmental delay in young paediatric cochlear implant candidates and progress with the device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a retrospective case series analysis of 32 children, aged between 1.2 and 2.8 years at pre-implant assessment. Children were assessed using the Schedule of Growing Skills II and IT-MAIS before implantation. Progress in speech perception and Speech Intelligibility was monitored using the E2L toy test and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR), respectively, 1 and 2 years after switch-on. RESULTS: Data were subjected to regression analyses, with either the E2L or SIR as the outcome variables, and variables derived from the Schedule of Growing Skills II (general development and cognitive functioning), IT-MAIS, age at switch-on and average aided hearing loss pre-implant as the predictor variables. In each analysis the strongest (and statistically significant) predictors of speech perception and Speech Intelligibility were the measures of general development and cognitive functioning, accounting for around 40% of the variance in outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study indicates the value of routinely assessing the general development of young paediatric cochlear implant candidates, as part of the pre-implant decision-making process. Significant developmental delay is predictive of poor outcomes, but children with a mild delay do make appreciable progress. Developmental assessment of young deaf children is therefore important in terms of candidacy decisions and counselling parents regarding potential benefit from a cochlear implant.

Cochlear Implantation↗