1. Facial Nerve Stimulation after Cochlear Implantation
- Author
-
Jennifer L, Smullen, Marek, Polak, Annelle V, Hodges, Stacy B, Payne, John E, King, Fred F, Telischi, and Thomas J, Balkany
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Stimulation ,Audiology ,Loudness ,Cochlear implant ,medicine ,Humans ,Child ,Cochlear implantation ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Aged, 80 and over ,business.industry ,Cochlear nerve ,Infant ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Cochlear Implantation ,Facial nerve ,Facial Nerve ,Cochlear Implants ,Otorhinolaryngology ,Child, Preschool ,Referral center ,Otosclerosis ,Female ,business ,Follow-Up Studies - Abstract
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
- Published
- 2005
- Full Text
- View/download PDF