Speech recognition and communication outcomes with cochlear implantation in usher syndrome type 3

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 38-41

  Pietola, Laura ^a   Aarnisalo, Antti A ^a   Abdel Rahman, Akram ^a   Västinsalo, Hanna ^a,b   Isosomppi, Juha ^a,b   Löppönen, Heikki ^c,d   Kentala, Erna ^a   Johansson, Reijo ^e   Valtonen, Hannu ^a,c   Vasama, Juha Pekka ^f   Sankila, Eeva Marja ^a,b   Jero, Jussi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FOLKHÄLSAN INSTITUTE OF GENETICS   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^f TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cochlear implantation; Hearing impairment; Patient benefit; Usher Type 3

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMMUNICATION DISORDER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FINLAND; GENETICS; HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYSIOLOGY; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SALIVA; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; USHER SYNDROME; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMMUNICATION DISORDERS; DNA MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FINLAND; HEARING; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SALIVA; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; USHER SYNDROMES; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 83655192106     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31823dbc56     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Saihan Z, Webster AR, Luxon L, Bitner-Glindzicz M. Update on Usher syndrome. Curr Opin Neurol 2009;22:19-27.
2. Plantinga RF, Kleemola L, Huygen PL, et al. Serial audiometry and speech recognition findings in Finnish Usher syndrome Type III patients. Audiol Neurootol 2005;10:79-89.
3. Pennings RJE, Wagenaar M, van Aarem A, Huygen PLM, Kimberling WJ, Cremers CWRJ. Hearing impairment in Usher's syndrome. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2002;61:184-91.
4. Pakarinen L, Tuppurainen K, Laippala P, Mäntyjärvi M, Puhakka H. The ophthalmological course of Usher syndrome Type III. Int Ophthalmol 1995-1996;19:307-11.
5. Peltonen L, Jalanko A, Varilo T. Molecular genetics of the Finnish disease heritage. Hum Mol Genet 1999;8:1913-23.
6. Joensuu T, Hämäläinen R, Yuan B, et al. Mutations in a novel gene with transmembrane domains underlie Usher syndrome Type 3. Am J Hum Genet 2001;69:673-84.
7. Adato A, Vreugde S, Joensuu T, et al. USH3A transcripts encode clarin-1, a four-transmembrane-domain protein with a possible role in sensory synapses. Eur J Hum Genet 2002;10:339-50.
8. Loundon L, Marlin S, Busquet D, et al. Usher syndrome and cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:216-21.
9. Damen GWJA, Pennings RJE, Snik AFM, Mylanus EAM. Quality of life and cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome Type I. Laryngoscope 2006;116:723-8.
10. Pennings RJE, Damen GWJ, Snik AFM, Hoefsloot L, Cremers CWRJ, Mylanus EAM. Audiologic performance and benefit of cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome Type I. Laryngoscope 2006;116:717-22.
11. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhino-laryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415-22.
12. Lassaletta L, Castro A, Bastarrica M, de Sarriá MJ, Gavilán J. Quality of live in postlingually deaf patients following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:267-70.
13. Isosomppi J,Västinsalo H, Geller SF,Heon E, Flannery JG, Sankila EM. Disease causing mutations in the CLRN1 gene alter normal CLRN1 protein trafficking to the plasma membrane. MolVis 2009;15:1806-18.
14. Jauhiainen T. An experimental study of the auditory perception of isolated bi-syllabic Finnish words. Helsinki, Finland, University of Helsinki, 1974 (dissertation).
15. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults. I. Theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear 2004;25:310-35.
16. Hinderink JB, Mens LH, Brokx JP, van den Broek P. Performance of prelingually and postlingually deaf patients using single-channel or multichannel cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1995;105:618-22.
17. Ebermann I, Phillips JB, Liebau MC, et al. PDZD7 is a modifier of retinal disease and a contributor to digenic Usher syndrome. J Clin Inv 2010;120:1812-23.
18. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, et al. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102:909-16.
19. Van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, Mens LH, Brokx JP, Smoorenburg GF. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38:109-16.
20. David EE, Ostroff JM, Shipp D, et al. Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: An analysis of postimplant performance. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:228-33.
21. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Shapiro WH. Use of multichannel cochlear implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population. Laryngoscope 1992;102:395-9.