Transcutaneous Osseo-integrated Auditory Devices: Analysis of Two Different Implants in Adults With Different Audiological Inclusion Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare audiological and speech/language discrimination results in patients with osteo-integrated auditory devices, by comparing two different systems including different audiological indications in adult population. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive and analytic, cross-sectional, cohort, and retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients >14 years old, with conductive, mixed, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss were compared. The variables studied were the following: pure tone audiometry results, air-bone gap, and the percentage of speech/language discrimination using Disyllabic Word Test. The patients were tested preoperative and 12 months after surgical procedure. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the both systems was carried out. RESULTS: With both implants, pure tone audiometry results and the difference in auditory thresholds and between the air-bone gap improved significantly. Speech discrimination increased significantly after implantation too. A significant difference was observed after implantation of both devices. Patients implanted with one of the implants showed better audiological results, but no significant differences were found with the other device. So, it was shown that the type of device and the type of hearing loss have no influence on the audiological results or complications. CONCLUSION: Both implants represent a good choice for audiological rehabilitation in patients with transmissive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss with a high success and low complication rates.

Transeptal suturing - a cost-efficient alternative for nasal packing in septal surgery / Sutura transeptal - uma alternativa custo-benefício para tamponamento nasal em cirurgia do septo

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Nasal packing is routinely used in septal surgery to prevent postoperative bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the possibility of transeptal suture as a safe and effective way to avoid nasal packing and to improve efficiency. METHODS: This is a prospective, descriptive, inferential cost study comprising 92 patients. Two randomized groups of patients were analyzed, one with nasal packing and the other with transeptal suture. RESULTS: In the group of transeptal suture no patient experienced postoperative bleeding, and a statistically significant reduction of pain and headache was demonstrated. At the same time, we improved efficiency by saving on material costs. CONCLUSIONS: Transeptal suture is an effective and safe alternative to classic nasal packing in septal surgery. Moreover, it improves the efficiency of the intervention by saving costs.

Resumo Introdução: O tamponamento nasal é usado rotineiramente na cirurgia septal para evitar sangramentos no pós-operatório. Objetivo: Demonstrar a possibilidade de se realizar uma sutura transeptal como alternativa eficaz e segura ao tamponamento nasal, com melhora na eficiência da intervenção. Método: Este é um estudo prospectivo, descritivo e de custo inferencial, compreendendo 92 pacientes. Dois grupos aleatórios foram estudados: um com tamponamento nasal e o outro com sutura transeptal. Resultado: No grupo de sutura transeptal, nenhum paciente experimentou sangramento no pós-operatório, tendo sido estatisticamente demonstrada uma significante redução de cefaléia e dor. Ao mesmo tempo, houve melhora na eficiência da intervenção, com economia no custo de material. Conclusões: A sutura transeptal é uma alternativa eficaz e segura ao tamponamento nasal clássico. Além do mais, melhora a eficiência da intervenção, economizando no custo de material.

Transeptal suturing - a cost-efficient alternative for nasal packing in septal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Nasal packing is routinely used in septal surgery to prevent postoperative bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the possibility of transeptal suture as a safe and effective way to avoid nasal packing and to improve efficiency. METHODS: This is a prospective, descriptive, inferential cost study comprising 92 patients. Two randomized groups of patients were analyzed, one with nasal packing and the other with transeptal suture. RESULTS: In the group of transeptal suture no patient experienced postoperative bleeding, and a statistically significant reduction of pain and headache was demonstrated. At the same time, we improved efficiency by saving on material costs. CONCLUSIONS: Transeptal suture is an effective and safe alternative to classic nasal packing in septal surgery. Moreover, it improves the efficiency of the intervention by saving costs.

Results in cochlear implanted children before 5 years of age. a long term follow up.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the hearing threshold and linguistic results of cochlear implanted children aged 10 months to 5 years, when they reached the age of 12. We studied the benefits of sequential bilateral implantation. METHOD AND RESULTS: This is an observational, descriptive, transversal study comprising 57 cochlear implanted subjects. We performed a free field tonal audiometry at 65dB SPL, speech tests and sentences in quiet and noise (SNR+10) tests. The Objective and Criterial Language Battery (BLOC) was used to assess linguistic competence, in its screening version. RESULTS: Children implanted under the age of 2 and with inter-implant period less than or equal to 4 years reached better statistically significant results in disyllabic and sentences with and without noise (p=0.006) tests and in the disyllabic test with noise (p=0.045) (the hardest speech test). This suggests the acquisition of binaurality, as opposed to children implanted after this age, with inter-implant period longer than 4 years, who do not reach the same performance levels. RESULTS: of language development in the group implanted at ages 10 months to 2 years are better with respect to implanted children at ages 3-5 (<0.05) in both unilateral and bilateral implanted children in relation to the age of implantation. CONCLUSION: Children with pre-lingual deafness implanted before the age of 2, when they are 12 years old obtain more benefits in their language development and in their linguistic competence than children implanted after this age. The audiology results are better in children implanted bilaterally under the age of 2.