Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T01:01:41.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cochlear implantation at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: a 12-year experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

H S Al-Muhaimeed ,
F Al-Anazy ,
M S Attallah  and
O Hamed
H S Al-Muhaimeed*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
F Al-Anazy
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
M S Attallah
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
O Hamed
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*
Address for correspondence: Professor Hamad Al-Muhaimeed, Professor, ORL, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Airport Road, PO Box 245, Riyadh 11411, KSA. Fax: +966 1 4775748 E-mail: prof.hamad@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This paper aims to report our experience with different multichannel cochlear implant devices, and to discuss the outcomes of our cochlear implant programme, together with the problems encountered.

Setting:

Cochlear implantation was undertaken in 117 patients (35 post-lingual and 82 pre-lingual cases; 70 males and 47 females) over a 12-year period. Three cochlear implant systems were used: Nucleus (22 and 24), Med-El and Advanced Bionics Clarion. An extended endaural incision was used in 78 cases and a minimally invasive approach in 39 cases.

Results:

Complications occurred in 16.2 per cent of patients. All patients showed a significant post-implantation improvement in their perception and discrimination of sound and speech. Better results were noted in pre-lingual patients under the age of six years. The cause of hearing loss was unknown in 81 per cent of patients.

Conclusion:

The outcomes of our cochlear implantation series are comparable to previous reports. The possibility of an abnormally rotated cochlea should be borne in mind when difficulty is encountered during cochleostomy.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantSensorineural Hearing LossSaudi Arabia

Information

Type
Online Only Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 11 , November 2009 , e20
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Chmiel, R, Sutton, L, Jenkins, H. Quality of life in children with cochlear implants. Ann Otorhinolaryngol 2000;185:103–5Google ScholarPubMed
2Hammes, DM, Novak, MA, Rotz, LA, Willis, M, Edmondson, DM, Thomas, JF. Early identification and cochlear implantation: critical factors for spoken language development. Ann Otorhinolaryngol 2002;189:74–8Google ScholarPubMed
3Kirk, KI, Miyamoto, RT, Lento, CL, Ying, E, O'Neill, T, Fears, B. Effects of age at implantation in young children. Ann Otorhinolaryngol 2002;189:69–73Google ScholarPubMed
4Labadie, RF, Carrasco, VN, Gilmer, GH, Pillsbury, HC 3rd.Cochlear implant performance in senior citizens. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:419–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Batman, C, Inanli, S, Özturk, O, Tutkun, A, Sehitoġh, MA. Cochlear implantation: patients, problems and surgical complications. Turkish Otolaryngolojia 2001;39:89–95Google Scholar
6Josefson, D. Cochlear implant carry risk of meningitis, agencies warn. BMJ 2002;325:298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Abdulmomen, HA, Zakzouk, SM. The prevalence of severe to profound sensory neural hearing loss in Saudi children and the need for cochlear implants. Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. Proceedings of the XVII World Congress of the International Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (IFOS) 2003;1240:339–43Google Scholar
8Karatzanis, AD, Chimona, TS, Prokopakis, EP, Kyrmizakis, DE, Velegrakis, GA. Cochlear implantation following radical mastoidectomy: management of a challenging case. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2003;65:375–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Lassig, AA, Zwolan, TA, Telian, SA. Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:624–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Green, KMJ, Bhatt, YM, Saeed, SR, Ramsden, RT. Complications following adult cochlear implantation: experience in Manchester. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:417–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Dutt, SN, Ray, J, Hadjihannas, E, Cooper, H, Donaldson, I, Proops, DW. Medical and surgical complications of the second 100 adult cochlear implant patients in Birmingham. J Laryngol Otol 2005;119:759–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Hoffman, RA, Cohen, NL. Complications of cochlear implant surgery. Ann Otol Rhinolaryngol 1995;166:420–2Google ScholarPubMed
13Miyamoto, RT, Houston, DM, Bergesson, T. Cochlear implantation in deaf infants. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1376–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Niklopoulos, TP, Wells, P, Archböld, SM. Using listening progress profile to assess early functional auditory performance in young implanted children. Deafness and Education International 2000;2:142–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar