Search

Objectives/Hypothesis: To validate a previously reported in vitro tissue model for microdebrider comparison and determine which microdebrider, tissue type, blade type, and suction strength is most efficient. Specifically, the goal of the secondary analysis is to expand on the results of the preliminary analy-sis by increasing the sample size, and introduce an aspiration efficiency score (AES) to facilitate microdebrider comparison. Study Design: Prospective randomized comparison. Methods: A prospective randomized comparison of the Diego Powered Dissector and XPS 3000 Powered ENT System was conducted using a soft tissue and a firm tissue model. In addition to evaluating tissue aspiration with straight and angled blades, clogging rates and clearance times were measured. Both standard wall suction and liposuction were used. Basic statistical analysis, a one-way analysis of variance, and a post hoc Student's t test were performed to compare outcomes. Results: With standard wall suction, the microdebriders were equivalent for the overall microdebrider comparison. For the “head to head” comparison with standard wall suction, the devices were also equivalent when using the straight blades, but the XPS 3000 aspirated more tissue when using the angled blades. With liposuction, the XPS 3000 and liposuction independently aspirated more tissue but clogged more often compared with the Diego PD and regular suction. The aspiration efficiency of soft tissue (oysters) and straight blades was superior compared with firm tissue (scallops) and angled blades. For the “head to head” comparison with liposuction, the XPS 3000 aspirated more tissue regardless of tissue type, but the Diego PD clogged less with firm tissue (scallops). Overall, the AES favored the XPS 3000, soft tissue (oysters), straight blades, and liposuction. Conclusion: Our tissue model represents a reliable and reproducible means of microdebrider comparison. Statistically significant differences between the Diego PD and XPS 3000, as well as between tissue types, blade types, and suction strengths, are reported. Using these results, microdebrider manufacturers can adopt similar tissue models, expand on the current AES, and include other commercially available microdebrider devices to test and report product performance to the consumer. Perhaps an optimal open to closed ratio or liposuction pressure can be determined that yields the greatest tissue aspiration with the fewest number of clogs.

Objectives: This study was designed to compare the incidence and nature of facial nerve stimulation (FNS) in patients receiving cochlear implants (CI) manufactured by Cochlear Corporation, Advanced Bionics Corporation, and MedEl. Study Design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary referral center. Methods: The charts of 600 patients who received CIs from 1993 to 2003 with at least 1 year of follow-up were reviewed for significant FNS (FNS on at least 1 channel at functional stimulation levels). Data collected included age, sex, etiology of deafness, device type, electrode, FNS onset after initial stimulation, number and location of electrode contacts causing FNS, and loudness level at which FSN occurred. Nucleus straight and perimodiolar electrodes were also compared. Results: Thirty-nine of 600 (6.5%) patients had FNS on at least one channel, (MedEl 3 of 43 [7.0%], Nucleus 29 of 440 [6.6%], and Clarion 7 of 117 [6.0%]). The incidence of FNS in Nucleus perimodiolar electrodes (16 of 250 [6.4%]) was similar to straight electrodes (13 of 190 (6.8%]), as was the mean number of electrodes causing FNS per patient (11 vs. 12). However, straight electrodes caused stimulation at significantly softer perceived loudness levels than perimodiolar electrodes (P

Objectives: To compare speech test performance of adults with partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) with that of adults with cochlear implant (CI). Based on the results, our objective is to determine the efficacy of the two applications of cochlear implantation, the first characterized by a shallow electrode insertion and preservation of low-frequency natural hearing for partial deafness, and the second characterized by a very deep electrode insertion used in subjects with severe to profound deafness. All the PDCI participants in this study were fitted with a recently upgraded DUET Hearing System from Med-El Corporation, Innsbruck, Austria. Study Design: This is a two-group comparison study. Eleven experienced PDCI adults and 22 postlingually deafened CI adults participated in this study. Subjects were implanted with either COMBI 40+ or PULSAR cochlear implant. Methods: Subjects were tested with monosyllable and sentence tests in Polish in quiet and under various signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the conditions of DUET only, CI only, DUET hearing aid (HA) only, and best aided (DUET plus contralateral hearing). CI subjects were tested with their CI. Results: PDCI subjects performed significantly better than CI subjects did. Speech tests demonstrated the best results in the conditions of best aided and DUET only. The poorest results were obtained in the condition DUET HA only. Results show a greater benefit for the PDCI group of subjects fitted with the DUET, compared to the CI alone group. Conclusions: The shallow electrode array insertion with preserved low-frequency hearing is a highly effective method for the treatment of partial deafness. The combination of HA and CI processor, i.e., the DUET, is beneficial in noise and in quiet.