Simpson A (2009) Frequency-lowering devices for managing high-frequency hearing loss: a review. Curr Top Med Chem 8:270–280Ĭollier TO, Anderson JM (2002) Protein and surface effects on monocyte and macrophage adhesion, maturation, and survival. Tang L, Thevenot P, Hu W (2008) Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. J Vasc Surg 11:599–606īonfield TL, Colton E, Anderson JM (1992) Protein adsorption of biomedical polymers influences activated monocytes to produce fibroblast stimulating factors.
Pankowsky DA, Ziats NP, Topham NS et al (1990) Morphologic characteristics of adsorbed human plasma proteins on vascular grafts and biomaterials. Polanski JF, Soares AD, Dos Santos ZM et al (2016) Active middle-ear implant fixation in an unusual place: clinical and audiological outcomes. Truy E, Eshraghi AA, Balkany TJ et al (2006) Vibrant soundbridge surgery. Otol Neurotol 33:613–617īrito R, Monteiro TA, Leal AF et al (2012) Complicações em 550 cirurgias consecutivas de implante coclear. Huber AM, Mlynski R, Müller J et al (2012) A new vibroplasty coupling technique as a treatment for conductive and mixed hearing losses. Otol Neurol 30:194–201īöheim K, Mlynski R, Lenarz T et al (2012) Round window vibroplasty: long-term results. Otol Neurotol 23:669–673īeltrame AM, Martini A, Prosser S et al (2009) Coupling the vibrant soundbridge to cochlea round window. Todt I, Seidl RO, Gross M et al (2002) Comparison of different vibrant soundbridge audioprocessors with conventional hearing aids. Lenarz T, Weber BP, Issing PR et al (2001) Vibrant soundbridge system: ein neuartiges hörimplantat für innenohrschwerhörige-teil 2: audiologische ergebnisse. Morgan DE, Dirks DD, Bower DR (1979) Suggested threshold sound pressure levels for frequency modulated (warble) tones in the sound field. In: Arregui ME, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Katkhouda N et al (eds) Principles of laparoscopic surgery. Reich H (1995) Laparoscopic surgery for adhesiolysis. Schraven SP, Dalhoff E, Wildenstein D et al (2014) Alternative fixation of an active middle ear implant at the short incus process. Rameh C, Meller R, Lavieille JP et al (2010) Long-term patient satisfaction with different middle ear hearing implants in sensorineural hearing loss. Sterkers O, Boucarra D, Labassi S et al (2003) A middle ear implant, the symphonix vibrant soundbridge: retrospective study of the first 125 patients implanted in France. Maier H, Hinze AL, Gerdes T et al (2015) Long-term results of incus vibroplasty in patients with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bouccara D et al (2008) Benefit of the vibrant soundbridge device in patients implanted for 5 to 8 years.
This method will reduce the requirement for surgery under general anesthesia, reduce the overall period of clinical therapy and, therefore, minimize patients’ medical costs.įisch U, Cremers WRJ, Lenarz T et al (2001) Clinical experience with the vibrant soundbridge implant device. The VSB implant revision surgical method involving adhesiolysis is safe and efficient for patients who experience a VSB device failure.
Satisfactory improvements in hearing thresholds and speech recognition abilities were confirmed by improvements of 20–30 dB in hearing loss 3 months after revision surgery. During the revisions of surgery, all patients achieved immediate hearing gains and noticed differences in the outer devices with different amplifications. Upon fitting the VSB, sound fields were evaluated immediately and at 3 months after the revision. This ‘seven-incision line’ exposed the floating mass transducer directly, after which the three steps (adhesiolysis, curettage, and hydrocortisone injection) were performed. All cases had diagnoses of device failure. Three cases of VSB surgery, performed in 2016, were enrolled. The objectives of the study were to report a vibrant soundbridge (VSB) implant revision surgical method involving adhesiolysis at the short incus process under local anesthesia and demonstrate successful hearing performance after surgery.
0 kommentar(er)
