Biomedical subjects

Stefan Marcel Pok

Publications and source records attributed to Stefan Marcel Pok.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear.

The aim of this study was to determine the improvement in speech recognition provided by a cochlear implant (CI) in conjunction with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear. The study was a retrospective cohort study in the context of a university teaching hospital CI programme. Seven CI patients who still use their HA in the opposite ear were tested. The scores with the CI alone and the CI in conjunction with an HA were evaluated by using three speech perception tests in quiet (Freiburger Numbers. Freiburger Monosyllables, and Innsbrucker Sentence Test). In the majority of tests and subjects. the CI alone performed better than the HA alone, and the bimodal (CI + HA) condition was superior to the CI alone. On the sentence test, the patients as a group improved from 47 96% (mean: 79%; CI alone) to 50-100% (mean: 88.1%; CI + HA, pv < 0.05). With the more difficult monosyllable test, the scores improved from 15-52% (mean: 37.2%; CI alone) to 15 82% (mean: 48.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). On the numbers test. scores increased from 65-98% (mean: 83%; CI alone) to 75-98% (mean: 88.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). All patients in this study were implanted in the poorer ear. The results of the present study suggest the advantage of CI usage in conjunction with an HA in the opposite ear.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2003

Variables affecting speech perception in postlingually deaf adults following cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time span over which there is greatest improvement in postlingually deaf adults undergoing cochlear implantation. Additionally, to quantify potential patient and device factors that may predict the postoperative results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted. Numbers, monosyllables and sentence test results were collected for 66 cochlear implant subjects [Combi 40/40 +, n = 60; Clarion HF2, n = 2; Nucleus 24m/k, n = 4] at regular intervals for up to 6 years following cochlear implantation. RESULTS: All patients showed a steady improvement over time on all tests. Progress during the first 12 months was statistically significant, with further improvements being recorded after the 12-month testing period. The duration of deafness and the number of electrodes (8 for the Combi 40, 12 for the Combi 40 + ) appeared to be weakly correlated with postoperative performance. Re-implantation after device failure had no negative effect on speech reception. Subjects who were "upgraded" from an analogue to a digital cochlear implant improved their test results almost twofold. CONCLUSION: All the patients in our study gained substantial benefit from their cochlear implants. It is encouraging to note that the factors examined were not deemed to be relevant predictors of performance. Even long-term deaf subjects and re-implantees are able to achieve an excellent level of speech perception.

Cochlear Implantation↗

PubMed2002

The role of age in pediatric cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To document progress, benefit and importance of age in paediatric cochlear implantation. DESIGN: The EARS (Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech) test battery was performed on 33 prelingually deaf children at regular intervals up to 36 months following implantation. All children participated in individually tailored intensive audiological rehabilitation programs after receiving their implants. In this respect, it was attempted to evaluate speech perception scores in children implanted before and after the age of 3 in a homogenous group. RESULTS: All children demonstrated encouraging improvements over time in their speech recognition abilities. Furthermore, it was observed that the children who were implanted under the age of 3 achieved higher levels of speech perception performance. CONCLUSION: In order to shorten the process of central maturation of the auditory system, it is desirable to implant the children as young as possible. Early intervention seems to be the ideal strategy in enabling prelingually deaf children to derive maximum benefit from cochlear implantation.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2002

Does cochlear reimplantation affect speech recognition?

Although cochlear implantation has been proven to be a very effective method of rehabilitation for post-lingually deaf adults and pre-lingually deaf children, as electronic devices, cochlear implants are occasionally subject to damage or breakdowns. In these cases, reimplantation would be necessary. The aim of this study was to find out whether or not there are any negative effects on speech abilities after reimplantation with the same type of multichannel digital implant in the same ear. Seven patients were provided with a digital multi-channel cochlear implant. One subject suffered manipulative damage to the implant, and in six subjects an implant failure was observed. All reimplantations were performed on the same ear as the initial implantation. with the same implant type. Parameters such as insertion depth and number of active channels were the same in all subjects before and after reimplantation. Immediately following the revision surgery, three patients attained the same level of hearing that they had with their original implants. Three months following reimplantation, five subjects achieved almost the same scores that they had before reimplantation. The results showed that cochlear implant patients undergoing re-implantation can anticipate achieving nearly the same level of speech recognition as they had with their original implant. Nevertheless, patients need to be aware of potential problems before undergoing reimplantation so that expectations are not too high.

Aged↗