gms | German Medical Science

82. Jahresversammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e. V.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e. V.

01.06. - 05.06.2011, Freiburg

Case report: Postoperative variations in quality of hearing with changes in head position: Believe your patients!

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author William Burke - Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland
  • Jürgen Neuburger - Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover
  • Thomas Lenarz - Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie. 82. Jahresversammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie. Freiburg i. Br., 01.-05.06.2011. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2011. Doc11hnod309

doi: 10.3205/11hnod309, urn:nbn:de:0183-11hnod3092

Veröffentlicht: 19. April 2011

© 2011 Burke et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Introduction: A 72 year-old patient with progressive sensorineural hearing loss underwent cochlear implant surgery in our tertiary referral university hospital. Following an unremarkable postoperative period, the patient presented 5 weeks later for the initial rehabilitation and fitting process. The patient reported differing impressions in the quality of hearing with changes in head position.

Methods: An intensive diagnostic examination of the device’s telemetry in varying head positions with subsequent explantation and reimplantation of the device.

Results: The telemetry yielded differing impedance values during flexion and extension of the neck. Based on this information, a technical defect in the implant was suspected. A revision operation was carried out in which the implant was replaced with a new device of the same model. During the subsequent rehabilitation and fitting process significantly improved speech comprehension was recorded, with the patient reporting stable quality of hearing. Post-explantation examination of the device revealed a defect in the electrode.

Conclusion: Unusual reports from patients are an intersting and not uncommon scenario for physicians. In this case, careful diagnostics yielded an excellent result for the patient.