PDF herunterladen
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 17(03): 351-355
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-977720130003000018
Case Report
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Retrolabyrinthine approach for cochlear nerve preservation in neurofibromatosis type 2 and simultaneous cochlear implantation

Ricardo Ferreira Bento
1   Otolaryngologist, PhD. Professor and Chairman. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Tatiana Alves Monteiro
2   Otolaryngologist. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Aline Gomes Bittencourt
3   Otolaryngologist, PhD student. Neurotology Fellow. Division of Otorhinolaryngology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Maria Valeria Schmidt Goffi-Gomez
4   Audiologist, PhD in Human Communication Disorders (Speech Pathology). Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Rubens de Brito
5   Otolaryngologist, PhD. Associate Professor. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

18. März 2013

18. April 2013

Publikationsdatum:
21. Januar 2014 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Introduction: Few cases of cochlear implantation (CI) in neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients had been reported in the literature. The approaches described were translabyrinthine, retrosigmoid or middle cranial fossa.

Objectives: To describe a case of a NF2- deafened-patient who underwent to vestibular schwannoma resection via RLA with cochlear nerve preservation and CI through the round window, at the same surgical time.

Resumed Report: A 36-year-old woman with severe bilateral hearing loss due to NF2 was submitted to vestibular schwannoma resection and simultaneous CI. Functional assessment of cochlear nerve was performed by electrical promontory stimulation. Complete tumor removal was accomplishment via RLA with anatomic and functional cochlear and facial nerve preservation. Cochlear electrode array was partially inserted via round window. Sound field hearing threshold improvement was achieved. Mean tonal threshold was 46.2 dB HL. The patient could only detect environmental sounds and human voice but cannot discriminate vowels, words nor do sentences at 2 years of follow-up.

Conclusion: Cochlear implantation is a feasible auditory restoration option in NF2 when cochlear anatomic and functional nerve preservation is achieved. The RLA is adequate for this purpose and features as an option for hearing preservation in NF2 patients.

Keywords

Neurofibromatosis 2 - Cochlear Implantation - Hearing Loss
 

  • References

  • 1 Kanowitz SJ, Shapiro WH, Golfinos JG, Cohen NL, Roland Jr JT. Auditory brainstem implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Laryngoscope 2004; 114: 2135-46
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vincenti V, Pasanisi E, Guida M, Di Trapani G, Sanna M. Hearing rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: cochlear versus auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurootol 2008; 13: 273-80
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Hitselberger WE, House WF, Edgerton BJ, Whitaker S. Cochlear nucleus implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1984; 92 (1) 52-4
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Tran Ba Huy P, Kania R, Frachet B, Poncet C, Legac MS. Auditoryrehabilitation with cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (9) 971-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cueva RA, Thedinger BA, Harris JP, Glasscock 3rd ME. Electrical promontory stimulation in patients with intact cochlear nerve and anacusis following acoustic neuroma surgery. Laryngoscope 1992; 102: 1220-24
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tono T, Ushisako Y, Morimitsu T. Cochlear implantation in an intralabyrinthine acoustic neuroma patient after resection of an intracanalicular tumor. J Laryngol Otol 1996; 110: 570-73
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Graham J, Lynch C, Weber B, Stollwerck L, Wei J, Brookes G. The magnetless Clarion cochlear implant in a patient with neurofibromatosis 2. J Laryngol Otol 1999; 113: 458-63
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Temple RH, Axon PR, Ramsden RT, Keles N, Deger K, Yucel E. Auditory rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2: a case for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 1999; 113: 161-63
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Ahsan S, Telischi F, Hodges A, Balkany T. Cochlear implantation concurrent with translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 472-74
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nolle C, Todt I, Basta D, Unterberg A, Mautner VF, Ernst A. Cochlear implantation after tumor resection in neurofibromatosis type 2: impact of infra- and postoperative neural response telemetry monitoring. ORL 2003; 65: 230-34
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Aristegui M, Denia A. Simultaneous cochlear implantation and translabyrinthine removal of vestibular schwannoma in an only hearing ear: report of two cases (neurofibromatosis type 2 and unilateral vestibular schwannoma). Otol Neurotol 2005; 26: 205-10
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lustig LR, Yeagle J, Driscoll CL, Blevins N, Francis H, Niparko JK. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and bilateral vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27: 512-18
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vincenti V, Pasanisi E, Guida M, Di Trapani G, Sanna M. Hearing rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: cochlear versus auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurootol 2008; 13: 273-80
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Celis-Aguilar E, Lassaletta L, Gavilán J. Cochlear implantationin patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and patients with vestibular schwannoma in the only hearing ear. Int J Otolaryngol 2012; 2012: 157497
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Belal A. Is cochlear implantation possible after acoustic tumor removal?. Otol Neurotol. 2001; 22 (4) 497-500
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Carlson ML, Breen JT, Driscoll CL, Link MJ, Neff BA, Gifford RH, Beatty CW. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2: variables affecting auditory performance. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (5) 853-62
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar