These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26314323)

  • 1. Tailed Palva flap in the subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation.
    Orhan KS; Polat B; Enver N; Güldiken Y
    J Laryngol Otol; 2015 Sep; 129(9):916-8. PubMed ID: 26314323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cochlear implant fixation using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture or bone-recess technique.
    Jethanamest D; Channer GA; Moss WJ; Lustig LR; Telischi FF
    Laryngoscope; 2014 Jul; 124(7):1674-7. PubMed ID: 24114870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 228 cases of cochlear implant receiver-stimulator placement in a tight subperiosteal pocket without fixation.
    Sweeney AD; Carlson ML; Valenzuela CV; Wanna GB; Rivas A; Bennett ML; Haynes DS
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2015 Apr; 152(4):712-7. PubMed ID: 25605691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of cochlear implant bed preparation and fixation technique on the revision cochlear implantation rate.
    Pamuk AE; Pamuk G; Jafarov S; Bajin MD; Saraç S; Sennaroğlu L
    J Laryngol Otol; 2018 Jun; 132(6):534-539. PubMed ID: 29888692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Minimal incision access for pediatric and adult cochlear implantation.
    Cui D; Shi Y; Su Q; Liu T; Han D; Li Y
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2014; 127(13):2434-7. PubMed ID: 24985579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of receiver-stimulator migration in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique: a prospective clinical study.
    Güldiken Y; Polat B; Enver N; Aydemir L; Çomoğlu Ş; Orhan KS
    J Laryngol Otol; 2017 Jun; 131(6):487-491. PubMed ID: 28290917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Subperiosteal temporal pocket versus standard technique in cochlear implantation: a comparative clinical study.
    Güldiken Y; Orhan KS; Yiğit O; Başaran B; Polat B; Güneş S; Acoğlu E; Değer K
    Otol Neurotol; 2011 Aug; 32(6):987-91. PubMed ID: 21725262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Minimally invasive cochlear implantation with mastoidal three-layer flap technique.
    Ulug T; Teker AM
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(5):292-8. PubMed ID: 19923871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The outcome of our modified double-flap technique for cochlear implantation: a case series of 342 consecutive patients.
    Alzoubi F; Odat H; Al Omari A; Al-Zuraiqi B
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Mar; 16(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 25029104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Minimal access and standard cochlear implantation: a comparative study.
    Prager JD; Neidich MJ; Perkins JN; Meinzen-Derr J; Greinwald JH
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2012 Aug; 76(8):1102-6. PubMed ID: 22595461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Surgical outcomes with subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation in very young children.
    Cohen MS; Ha AY; Kitsko DJ; Chi DH
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2014 Sep; 78(9):1545-7. PubMed ID: 25064628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Minimally invasive pocket technique for the implantation of Neurelec Digisonic SP cochlear implant.
    Vanlommel M; Lipski S; Dolhen P
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2014 May; 271(5):913-8. PubMed ID: 23575934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The new Nucleus 5 model cochlear implant: a new surgical technique and early clinical results.
    Monksfield P; Husseman J; Cowan RS; O'Leary SJ; Briggs RJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2012 Aug; 13(3):142-7. PubMed ID: 22333886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Non-sutured fixation of the internal receiver-stimulator in cochlear implantation.
    Boscolo-Rizzo P; Muzzi E; Barillari MR; Trabalzini F
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2011 Jul; 268(7):961-5. PubMed ID: 21221619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spontaneous bone bed formation in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique.
    Orhan KS; Polat B; Enver N; Çelik M; Güldiken Y; Değer K
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Dec; 35(10):1752-4. PubMed ID: 25025535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Minimal access cochlear implant fixation: temporalis pocket with a plate.
    Shelton C; Warren FM
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Dec; 33(9):1530-4. PubMed ID: 23064385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Long-term complications after cochlear implantation.
    Ikeya J; Kawano A; Nishiyama N; Kawaguchi S; Hagiwara A; Suzuki M
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2013 Dec; 40(6):525-9. PubMed ID: 23827755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Periosteal Flap in Cochlear Implantation, How I Do It?
    Fouad YA; Roland T
    J Int Adv Otol; 2018 Apr; 14(1):140-143. PubMed ID: 29764788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The temporalis pocket technique for cochlear implantation: an anatomic and clinical study.
    Balkany TJ; Whitley M; Shapira Y; Angeli SI; Brown K; Eter E; Van De Water T; Telischi FF; Eshraghi AA; Treaba C
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Oct; 30(7):903-7. PubMed ID: 19730145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Complication rate of minimally invasive cochlear implantation.
    Stratigouleas ED; Perry BP; King SM; Syms CA
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2006 Sep; 135(3):383-6. PubMed ID: 16949968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.