| Title |
Impact of cochlear implantation on the management strategy of patients with neurofibromatosis type 2
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-018-5127-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Haoyue Tan, Huan Jia, Yun Li, Zhihua Zhang, Weidong Zhu, Yun Cai, Zhaoyan Wang, Hao WU |
| Abstract |
To investigate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), and to discuss the current management strategy for NF2 patients. The medical records of NF2 patients who received cochlear implants (CI) at our center between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-operative hearing status, tumor status, treatment of tumors, and auditory outcomes post-implantation were evaluated. Twelve patients were included in the study. Five were implanted with the tumor in situ; two of them received radiotherapy pre-implantation, and three were implanted without any previous treatment. Four patients were implanted simultaneously with tumor removal. Three patients were implanted as second-stage after failed hearing preservation surgery. The mean pure tone audiometry with the implant was 44 dB (range 25-80 dB) and the mean sentence recognition score (SRS) in a quiet environment without lip reading was 63% (range 0-97%). A poorer objective auditory outcome was identified in one patient who showed no response to electrical promontory stimulation (EPS), but the sound perception was still helpful. In total, 11 of 12 (91%) patients were daily users, and the other patient used the implant as a "sleeper" device due to its interference with contralateral hearing provided by a hearing aid. CI is an effective option in auditory rehabilitation and should be considered primarily for NF2 patients with intact cochlear nerve. EPS might be a predictor for cochlear implant performance. Good contralateral hearing may present a barrier to daily use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 25% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 27% |
| Psychology | 6 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 January 2019.
All research outputs
#12,813,320
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#799
of 3,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,199
of 341,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#7
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 341,703 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.