Patients with intractable tinnitus in a dead ear were selected for electrical tinnitus suppression (ETS) first with a round window electrode inserted via the ear canal. There have been reports of this surgery being performed under local anaesthesia and sedation for unilateral cochlear implantation. After critical appraisal, eleven studies were selected for data extraction and analysis of demographic, study design and outcome data. The 1-mm thick coronal images were either acquired directly or were reconstructed from an axial dataset acquired at 0.75 or 0.6 mm section thickness. Larger studies are necessary to define the tangible benefits of cochlear implantation in patients with SSD. Review processing is performed by the editorial board members of Journal of Phonetics & Audiology or by outside experts. All patients were implanted by the same surgeon.
A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases leading up to February, 2015, using the following terms: SSD (or synonyms – see Table 1) and cochlear implantation. While screening titles and abstracts, the authors excluded any duplicates, review articles, animal studies, case reports and articles written in languages other than English or Spanish. The article presents information on a combination of technology and surgery that could give humans hearing as good as a bat or an owl. The simulation results were in very good agreement with the results obtained from in-vitro experiments. Therefore, the implant and the electrodes were fixed with a plastic holding device and plastic eyelets which were glued on to the bottom of the petri dish. Our patients did not wear hearing aids (HAs) before implantation as their hearing loss (HL) was too profound for HAs to provide sufficient acoustic amplification. The search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lylacs retrieved a total of 228 articles, but only 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study.
Next, the respective studies were appraised, according to evidence-based guidelines of categorization of medical studies (Table 2), and systematically analyzed. The difficulty of treating tinnitus is probably partly the result of the heterogeneity in the underlying cause of this disorder. Only prospective comparative studies and case series were to be analyzed in this review. The operated patients’ demographics and audiometric data were carefully examined to avoid double counting of cases. If complications had developed, they stayed in hospital until the problem was either resolved or discharge was considered safe. FS4 and FS4-p, developments of the FSP coding strategy, both have fine structure information delivered to designated low-fre- quency apical channels which can span 70 Hz – 950 Hz. Some studies presented incomplete data13 and were excluded for further analysis.
The failure is due to either an internal electronic malfunction or to a structural problem. The Mongolian gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus, has been widely employed as a model for studies of the inner ear. A total of 137 patients with single sided-deafness have been submitted to a cochlear implant. Pooling of data was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity among the studies. 1986;100:1129–1132. As described above, data are summarized in Table 3. The tinnitus has remained stable, and there have been no vestibular problems.
There are several studies examining the effectiveness of cochlear implants and other treatments in rehabilitating sound localization. Localization error is commonly used as an outcome measure to assess localization. Cochlear implants and magnetic resonance scans: A case report and review. The VEMP threshold was defined as the minimum stimulus intensity for which a p13-n23 wave was detected. Arndt et al16 compared sound localization using CROS, osseointegrated implant devices or cochlear implants six months after implantation in a cohort of 11 patients. Seven loudspeakers were placed in a semicircle in front of the patients, which were then asked to identify the speaker that was delivering the sound. Patients who received cochlear implants showed significantly less localization error compared to those in an unaided condition (p=0.003), and patients with osseointegrated implant (p=0.002), and patients with CROS hearing aid devices (p=0.001).
Recently, Firszt et al17 reported that seven out of ten adults that had undergone cochlear implantation showed improvement in sound localization in the bimodal condition (CI plus hearing aid (HA) in better ear) compared with the HA-only condition (P ≤ 0.05). Interestingly, these same seven had postlingual deafness in contrast to three who did not exhibit any improvement in sound localization and who presented with either prelingual or perilingual deafness.