One main theory behind the origin of @entity392 is based on the idea that alterations of the spontaneous electrical activity within the auditory system lead to abnormal firing patterns in the affected nervous structures [1]. A possible therapeutic option is the use of electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve for the recovery or at least limitation of the abnormal firing pattern to a level that can be easily tolerated by the @entity1 . The Tinnelec Implant consists of a single non-penetrating stimulation electrode connected to a Neurelec cochlear implant system. As a first feasibility study, before starting implantations in hearing @entity1 , we thought to assess the potential of the Tinnelec stimulation to treat @entity392 in unilateral deaf @entity1 , analysing hereby its effectivity and risks. Three @entity1 suffering from unilateral @entity392 resistant to pharmacological treatment and ipsilateral severe to profound @entity1274 / @entity2319 were implanted with a Tinnelec system between September 2007 and July 2008, at the ENT Department of Hannover Medical School. The stimulation strategy was chosen to induce alleviation of the @entity392 through suppression, masking and/or habituation and the response of each @entity1 on the treatment was monitored using a visual analogue scale (VAS) on loudness and annoyance of @entity392 , mood of the @entity1 , as well as the @entity1032 inventory (THI). All @entity1 had a benefit from the electrical stimulation for their @entity392 (THI-score improvement of 20-70), however, not all @entity1 profited from the Tinnelec system in same way and degree. In one @entity1 , despite good results, the device had to be replaced with a conventional cochlear implant because of Tinnelec-independent increase in @entity393 on the contralateral ear. Additionally, due to the extension of cochlear implant indications, the devices of the other two @entity1 have been meanwhile replaced with a conventional cochlear implant to benefit additionally from hearing improvement. As demonstrated in the present study, sensorineural @entity392 in @entity1 may be suppressed/masked/habituated by electrical stimulation. The main advantage of the Tinnelec implant would be the option to treat @entity1 with normal and usable hearing, stimulating the affected ear with the cochlear non-penetrating stimulation electrode of the device, and extend the treatment in cases of progressive @entity393 by explanation and reimplantation with a penetrating electrode addressing @entity392 as well as the @entity393 . The present study is the first report on a long-term follow-up on @entity392 @entity1 implanted with Tinnelec. Further clinical studies to implant @entity392 @entity1 with residual or normal hearing on the affected ear are on the way.

Non-penetrating round window electrode stimulation for XXXX therapy followed by cochlear implantation.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['participants', 'humans', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity1032 :: ('MESH:D008607', 'Disease') :: ['tinnitus handicap'] @entity2319 :: ('MESH:D003638', 'Disease') :: ['deafness'] @entity1274 :: ('MESH:D006319', 'Disease') :: ['sensorineural hearing loss'] @entity392 :: ('MESH:D014012', 'Disease') :: ['tinnitus'] @entity393 :: ('MESH:D034381', 'Disease') :: ['hearing loss', 'hearing impairment']
@entity392 :: (MESH:D014012,Disease) :: ['tinnitus']
