We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Enlarged vestibular aqueduct in pediatric sensorineural hearing loss.
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2009 April
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the Cincinnati criteria (midpoint >0.9 mm or operculum >1.9 mm) to the Valvassori criterion (midpoint > or =1.5 mm) for enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) in pediatric cochlear implant patients.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study.
SUBJECTS: One hundred thirty pediatric cochlear implant recipients.
METHODS: We reviewed temporal bone CT scans to measure the vestibular aqueduct midpoint and opercular width.
RESULTS: The Cincinnati criteria identified 44 percent of patients with EVA versus 16 percent with the Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01). Of those with EVA, 45 percent were unilateral and 55 percent were bilateral using Cincinnati criteria; 64 percent were unilateral and 36 percent bilateral using Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01). The Cincinnati criteria diagnosed 70 ears with EVA classified as normal using the Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01); 59 lacked another medical explanation for their hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: The Cincinnati criteria identified a large percentage of pediatric cochlear implant patients with EVA who might otherwise have no known etiology for their deafness.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study.
SUBJECTS: One hundred thirty pediatric cochlear implant recipients.
METHODS: We reviewed temporal bone CT scans to measure the vestibular aqueduct midpoint and opercular width.
RESULTS: The Cincinnati criteria identified 44 percent of patients with EVA versus 16 percent with the Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01). Of those with EVA, 45 percent were unilateral and 55 percent were bilateral using Cincinnati criteria; 64 percent were unilateral and 36 percent bilateral using Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01). The Cincinnati criteria diagnosed 70 ears with EVA classified as normal using the Valvassori criterion (P < 0.01); 59 lacked another medical explanation for their hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: The Cincinnati criteria identified a large percentage of pediatric cochlear implant patients with EVA who might otherwise have no known etiology for their deafness.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app