Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis

Marek Polak, S. Arif Ulubil, Annelle V. Hodges, Thomas J. Balkany

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To find if patients experiencing postsurgical facial nerve stimulation caused by underlying disease process (ie, otosclerosis) can improve their hearing performance with their cochlear implant by reimplantation and by an optimal programming strategy. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center. Patients: Two cochlear otosclerosis patients with resistant facial nerve stimulation (FNS). Both patients were initially implanted with Nucleus 22 devices (Cochlear Corporation, Englewood, Colo) and they developed FNS after a period of use. Owing to the decreasing number of active electrodes, concurrent decreases in speech understanding occurred. Interventions: Various programming approaches were used to address the FNS. Both subjects ultimately received Nucleus 24 devices. One was reimplanted in the same ear, and the other was implanted in the opposite ear. Both have been followed up for 8 months following the reimplantation. Main Outcome Measures: Cochlear implant programming levels, cochlear implant performance, and facial nerve stimulation. Results: The FNS was managed for more than 3 years through optimized programming. However, the FNS progressed until performance dropped below acceptable levels. Reimplantation was believed to be the only option for improvement. After reimplantation and programming, both subjects showed immediate improvement in speech discrimination. One user increased his consonant-nucleusconsonant word score from12%preoperatively to 42%, and the other's performance increased from 0% to 86%. Conclusions: Our results suggest that having more programming options with newer devices is critical in otosclerotic or ossified users who experience FNS. Also, reimplantation may be a useful tool to improve performance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)398-404
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume132
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2006

Fingerprint

Otosclerosis
Cochlear Implantation
Facial Nerve
Replantation
Cochlear Implants
Cochlea
Equipment and Supplies
Ear
Speech Perception
Tertiary Care Centers
Hearing
Electrodes
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis. / Polak, Marek; Ulubil, S. Arif; Hodges, Annelle V.; Balkany, Thomas J.

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 132, No. 4, 01.04.2006, p. 398-404.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Polak, Marek ; Ulubil, S. Arif ; Hodges, Annelle V. ; Balkany, Thomas J. / Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis. In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2006 ; Vol. 132, No. 4. pp. 398-404.
@article{b14a07b196c94835918bd30b602a0648,
title = "Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis",
abstract = "Objective: To find if patients experiencing postsurgical facial nerve stimulation caused by underlying disease process (ie, otosclerosis) can improve their hearing performance with their cochlear implant by reimplantation and by an optimal programming strategy. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center. Patients: Two cochlear otosclerosis patients with resistant facial nerve stimulation (FNS). Both patients were initially implanted with Nucleus 22 devices (Cochlear Corporation, Englewood, Colo) and they developed FNS after a period of use. Owing to the decreasing number of active electrodes, concurrent decreases in speech understanding occurred. Interventions: Various programming approaches were used to address the FNS. Both subjects ultimately received Nucleus 24 devices. One was reimplanted in the same ear, and the other was implanted in the opposite ear. Both have been followed up for 8 months following the reimplantation. Main Outcome Measures: Cochlear implant programming levels, cochlear implant performance, and facial nerve stimulation. Results: The FNS was managed for more than 3 years through optimized programming. However, the FNS progressed until performance dropped below acceptable levels. Reimplantation was believed to be the only option for improvement. After reimplantation and programming, both subjects showed immediate improvement in speech discrimination. One user increased his consonant-nucleusconsonant word score from12{\%}preoperatively to 42{\%}, and the other's performance increased from 0{\%} to 86{\%}. Conclusions: Our results suggest that having more programming options with newer devices is critical in otosclerotic or ossified users who experience FNS. Also, reimplantation may be a useful tool to improve performance.",
author = "Marek Polak and Ulubil, {S. Arif} and Hodges, {Annelle V.} and Balkany, {Thomas J.}",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/archotol.132.4.398",
language = "English",
volume = "132",
pages = "398--404",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis

AU - Polak, Marek

AU - Ulubil, S. Arif

AU - Hodges, Annelle V.

AU - Balkany, Thomas J.

PY - 2006/4/1

Y1 - 2006/4/1

N2 - Objective: To find if patients experiencing postsurgical facial nerve stimulation caused by underlying disease process (ie, otosclerosis) can improve their hearing performance with their cochlear implant by reimplantation and by an optimal programming strategy. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center. Patients: Two cochlear otosclerosis patients with resistant facial nerve stimulation (FNS). Both patients were initially implanted with Nucleus 22 devices (Cochlear Corporation, Englewood, Colo) and they developed FNS after a period of use. Owing to the decreasing number of active electrodes, concurrent decreases in speech understanding occurred. Interventions: Various programming approaches were used to address the FNS. Both subjects ultimately received Nucleus 24 devices. One was reimplanted in the same ear, and the other was implanted in the opposite ear. Both have been followed up for 8 months following the reimplantation. Main Outcome Measures: Cochlear implant programming levels, cochlear implant performance, and facial nerve stimulation. Results: The FNS was managed for more than 3 years through optimized programming. However, the FNS progressed until performance dropped below acceptable levels. Reimplantation was believed to be the only option for improvement. After reimplantation and programming, both subjects showed immediate improvement in speech discrimination. One user increased his consonant-nucleusconsonant word score from12%preoperatively to 42%, and the other's performance increased from 0% to 86%. Conclusions: Our results suggest that having more programming options with newer devices is critical in otosclerotic or ossified users who experience FNS. Also, reimplantation may be a useful tool to improve performance.

AB - Objective: To find if patients experiencing postsurgical facial nerve stimulation caused by underlying disease process (ie, otosclerosis) can improve their hearing performance with their cochlear implant by reimplantation and by an optimal programming strategy. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center. Patients: Two cochlear otosclerosis patients with resistant facial nerve stimulation (FNS). Both patients were initially implanted with Nucleus 22 devices (Cochlear Corporation, Englewood, Colo) and they developed FNS after a period of use. Owing to the decreasing number of active electrodes, concurrent decreases in speech understanding occurred. Interventions: Various programming approaches were used to address the FNS. Both subjects ultimately received Nucleus 24 devices. One was reimplanted in the same ear, and the other was implanted in the opposite ear. Both have been followed up for 8 months following the reimplantation. Main Outcome Measures: Cochlear implant programming levels, cochlear implant performance, and facial nerve stimulation. Results: The FNS was managed for more than 3 years through optimized programming. However, the FNS progressed until performance dropped below acceptable levels. Reimplantation was believed to be the only option for improvement. After reimplantation and programming, both subjects showed immediate improvement in speech discrimination. One user increased his consonant-nucleusconsonant word score from12%preoperatively to 42%, and the other's performance increased from 0% to 86%. Conclusions: Our results suggest that having more programming options with newer devices is critical in otosclerotic or ossified users who experience FNS. Also, reimplantation may be a useful tool to improve performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645863774&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645863774&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archotol.132.4.398

DO - 10.1001/archotol.132.4.398

M3 - Article

C2 - 16618909

AN - SCOPUS:33645863774

VL - 132

SP - 398

EP - 404

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 4

ER -