↓ Skip to main content

Hearing loss in hydrocephalus: a review, with focus on mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Review, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Hearing loss in hydrocephalus: a review, with focus on mechanisms
Published in
Neurosurgical Review, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10143-015-0650-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Satzer, Daniel J. Guillaume

Abstract

While neither hydrocephalus nor cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt placement is traditionally considered in the differential diagnosis of hearing loss, there is substantial evidence that CSF circulation and pressure abnormalities can produce auditory dysfunction. Several indirect mechanisms may explain association between hydrocephalus and hearing loss, including mass effect, compromise of the auditory pathway, complications of prematurity, and genetically mediated hydrocephalus and hearing loss. Nevertheless, researchers have proposed a direct mechanism, which we term the hydrodynamic theory. In this hypothesis, the intimate relationship between CSF and inner ear fluids permits relative endolymphatic or perilymphatic hydrops in the setting of CSF pressure disturbances. CSF is continuous with perilymph, and CSF pressure changes are known to produce parallel perilymphatic pressure changes. In support of the hydrodynamic theory, some studies have found an independent association between hydrocephalus and hearing loss. Moreover, surgical shunting of CSF has been linked to both resolution and development of auditory dysfunction. The disease burden of hydrocephalus-associated hearing loss may be large, and because hydrocephalus and over-shunting are reversible, this relationship merits broader recognition. Hydrocephalic patients should be monitored for hearing loss, and hearing loss in a patient with shunted hydrocephalus should prompt further evaluation and possibly adjustment of shunt settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 19%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Professor 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Neuroscience 11 16%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,998,900
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#59
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,443
of 266,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them