PubMed · 16296573
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Dragan Dankuc. [Cochlear implants].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16296573/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
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.
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.
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.