Analysis of Inner Ear Anomalies in Unilateral Congenital Aural Atresia Combined With Microtia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of inner ear anomalies in patients with unilateral congenital aural atresia (CAA) combined with microtia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 61 patients with unilateral CAA combined with microtia who underwent high-resolution temporal bone computed tomography (TBCT) and hearing examination. Inner ear anomalies were analyzed using TBCT and evaluated according to the Jahrsdoerfer grading system, Marx classification, and extent of inferior displacement of the mastoid tegmen. RESULTS: Inner ear anomalies were observed in 14 patients (23.0%). Lateral semicircular canal (LSCC) dysplasia was the most common inner ear anomaly, with an incidence of 16.4%. The incidence was significantly higher on the pathologic side than on the unaffected side (P=0.002). All vascular anomalies were observed in the high-riding jugular bulb, with an incidence of 24.6%. The incidence was significantly higher on the pathologic side than on the unaffected side (P<0.001). LSCC dysplasia was significantly more common in patients with a lower Jahrsdoerfer score (odds ratio, 0.66; P=0.004). CONCLUSION: The incidence of inner ear anomalies was relatively high in patients with unilateral CAA combined with microtia; LSCC dysplasia was the most common anomaly and the probability of coexistence was higher in patients with a lower Jahrsdoerfer score.

Analysis of Inner Ear Anomalies in Unilateral Congenital Aural Atresia Combined With Microtia

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of inner ear anomalies in patients with unilateral congenital aural atresia (CAA) combined with microtia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 61 patients with unilateral CAA combined with microtia who underwent high-resolution temporal bone computed tomography (TBCT) and hearing examination. Inner ear anomalies were analyzed using TBCT and evaluated according to the Jahrsdoerfer grading system, Marx classification, and extent of inferior displacement of the mastoid tegmen. RESULTS: Inner ear anomalies were observed in 14 patients (23.0%). Lateral semicircular canal (LSCC) dysplasia was the most common inner ear anomaly, with an incidence of 16.4%. The incidence was significantly higher on the pathologic side than on the unaffected side (P=0.002). All vascular anomalies were observed in the high-riding jugular bulb, with an incidence of 24.6%. The incidence was significantly higher on the pathologic side than on the unaffected side (P<0.001). LSCC dysplasia was significantly more common in patients with a lower Jahrsdoerfer score (odds ratio, 0.66; P=0.004). CONCLUSION: The incidence of inner ear anomalies was relatively high in patients with unilateral CAA combined with microtia; LSCC dysplasia was the most common anomaly and the probability of coexistence was higher in patients with a lower Jahrsdoerfer score.

Surgical and Audiologic Comparison Between Sophono and Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids Implantation.

OBJECTIVES: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) occasionally cause soft tissue problems due to abutment. Because Sophono does not have abutment penetrating skin, it is thought that Sophono has no soft tissue problem relating to abutment. On the other hand, transcutaneous device's output is reported to be 10 to 15 dB lower than percutaneous device. Therefore, in this study, Sophono and BAHA were compared to each other from surgical and audiological points of view. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 9 Sophono patients and 10 BAHA patients. In BAHA cases, single vertical incision without skin thinning technique was done. We compared Sophono to BAHA by operation time, wound healing time, postoperative complications, postoperative hearing gain after switch on, and postoperative air-bone gap. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 60 minutes for Sophono and 25 minutes for BAHA. The wound healing time was 14 days for Sophono and 28 days for BAHA. No major intraoperative complication was observed. Skin problem was not observed in the 2 devices for the follow-up period. Postoperative hearing gain of bilateral aural atresia patients was 39.4 dB for BAHA (n=4) and 25.5 dB for Sophono (n=5). However, the difference was not statistically significant. In all patients included in this study, the difference of air-bone gap between two groups was 16.6 dB at 0.5 kHz and 18.2 dB at 4 kHz. BAHA was statistically significantly better than Sophono. CONCLUSION: Considering the audiologic outcome, BAHA users were thought to have more audiologic benefit than Sophono users. However, Sophono had advantages over BAHA with abutment in cosmetic outcome. Sophono needed no daily skin maintenance and soft tissue complication due to abutment would not happen in Sophono. Therefore, a full explanation about each device is necessary before deciding implantation.

Surgical and Audiologic Comparison Between Sophono and Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids Implantation

OBJECTIVES: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) occasionally cause soft tissue problems due to abutment. Because Sophono does not have abutment penetrating skin, it is thought that Sophono has no soft tissue problem relating to abutment. On the other hand, transcutaneous device's output is reported to be 10 to 15 dB lower than percutaneous device. Therefore, in this study, Sophono and BAHA were compared to each other from surgical and audiological points of view. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 9 Sophono patients and 10 BAHA patients. In BAHA cases, single vertical incision without skin thinning technique was done. We compared Sophono to BAHA by operation time, wound healing time, postoperative complications, postoperative hearing gain after switch on, and postoperative air-bone gap. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 60 minutes for Sophono and 25 minutes for BAHA. The wound healing time was 14 days for Sophono and 28 days for BAHA. No major intraoperative complication was observed. Skin problem was not observed in the 2 devices for the follow-up period. Postoperative hearing gain of bilateral aural atresia patients was 39.4 dB for BAHA (n=4) and 25.5 dB for Sophono (n=5). However, the difference was not statistically significant. In all patients included in this study, the difference of air-bone gap between two groups was 16.6 dB at 0.5 kHz and 18.2 dB at 4 kHz. BAHA was statistically significantly better than Sophono. CONCLUSION: Considering the audiologic outcome, BAHA users were thought to have more audiologic benefit than Sophono users. However, Sophono had advantages over BAHA with abutment in cosmetic outcome. Sophono needed no daily skin maintenance and soft tissue complication due to abutment would not happen in Sophono. Therefore, a full explanation about each device is necessary before deciding implantation.