Nadia Giarbini

Dr. Nadia Giarbini

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2009 in Otology & Neurotology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ABAchille M. Beltrame
Achille M. Beltrame
Alessandro MartiniAlessandro Martini
Alessandro Martini
SPSilvano Prosser
Silvano Prosser
NGNadia Giarbini
Nadia Giarbini
CSChristian Streitberger
Christian Streitberger
To assess the functional results of the Vibrant Soundbridge (VBS) placed on the round window (RW) in patients with mixed hearing loss. Retrospective evaluation of functional hearing, with measurements performed 7 to 9 months postoperatively. Two tertiary referral hospital centers. Twelve individuals with mixed severe hearing loss associated with chronic suppurative otitis media and otosclerosis. Surgical placement of the VBS mechanical effector in close contact with the RW membrane to directly drive the inner ear fluids. Functional hearing gain as analyzed via pure-tone audiometry and speech audiometry with VBS off and on in quiet and in noise. We observed a mean gain of 37.5 dB (0.5-4 kHz) with wide individual differences. The overall gain is mainly due to the air-bone gap recovery, whereas a further 12-dB mean improvement of air-conducted threshold is evident at 2 kHz. The speech reception threshold in quiet shows a mean gain of 24 dB, whereas in noise, it requires a signal-to-noise ratio 7 to 13 dB greater than normal-hearing controls. All patients are daily users of their VBS device. A middle ear implant capable of directly driving the cochlear fluids seems to be a promising alternative for individuals with a severe to profound mixed hearing loss. However, variability in hearing recovery is great, likely reflecting variability in responsiveness of the cochlea associated with chronic pathologic findings and, possibly, variability in how the VBS effector interfaces with the RW. Modifying the shape of the VBS effector can improve the mechanical coupling to the RW to better exploit the device's amplification power.

1 November 2010 in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CCCor W.R.J. Cremers
Cor W.R.J. Cremers
AOAlec Fitzgerald O’cOnnor
Alec Fitzgerald O’cOnnor
JHJan Helms
Jan Helms
JRJoseph Roberson
Joseph Roberson
PCPedro Clarós
Pedro Clarós
ASAd F.M. Snik
Ad F.M. Snik

1 June 2016 in Hearing Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Laura AstolfiLaura Astolfi
Laura Astolfi
ESEDI SIMONI
EDI SIMONI
NGNadia Giarbini
Nadia Giarbini
PGP. Giordano
P. Giordano
MPMicaela Pannella
Micaela Pannella
Alessandro MartiniAlessandro Martini
Alessandro Martini

1 October 2000 in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
VCVittorio Colletti
Vittorio Colletti
FFFrancesco G. Fiorino
Francesco G. Fiorino
MCMarco Carner
Marco Carner
LSLuca Sacchetto
Luca Sacchetto
NGNadia Giarbini
Nadia Giarbini
The middle fossa approach was used in 11 patients with profound bilateral hearing loss for insertion of a cochlear implant. Fibroadhesive otitis media (n = 1), bilateral cavity radical mastoidectomy (n = 1), autoimmune inner ear disease (n = 2), previous cranial trauma (n = 1), genetic prelingual deafness (n = 5), and otosclerosis (n = 1) were the causes of deafness. A cochleostomy was performed on the most superficial part of the basal turn, and the electrode array was inserted up to the cochlear apex. Speech perception tests (1‐9 months after cochlear implant activation) yielded better results in these patients compared with a homogeneous group of postlingually deaf patients operated on through the traditional transmastoid route. Insertion of the implant through the middle fossa cochleostomy furnishes the possibility of stimulating areas of the cochlea (ie, the middle and apical turns) where a greater survival rate of spiral ganglion cells is known to occur, with improvement of information regarding the formants relevant for speech perception. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:467‐74.)

1 August 2015 in Otology & Neurotology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HFHenning Frenzel
Henning Frenzel
GSGeorg Sprinzl
Georg Sprinzl
CSChristian Streitberger
Christian Streitberger
TSThomas Stark
Thomas Stark
BWBarbara Wollenberg
Barbara Wollenberg
JHJohn-Martin Hempel
John-Martin Hempel
Evaluation of safety and efficacy of the Vibrant Soundbridge in the treatment of hearing loss in children and adolescents with primary focus on improvement in speech discrimination. Prospective, single-subject repeated-measures design in which each subject serves as his/her own control. Tertiary referral center. Nineteen patients aged 5 to 17 years. Implantation of an active middle ear implant. Improvement in word recognition scores, speech reception thresholds, and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were evaluated, in addition to air and bone conduction. Oldenburger Kids Satztest/Oldenburger Satztest sentences and Göttinger/Freiburger monosyllables at 65-dB hearing level were tested in two age groups. Significant speech discrimination improvement was seen in all patients after 6 months. In children 5 to 9 years old, mean monosyllable recognition improved from 28.9% (unaided) to 95.5% (Soundbridge-aided). Aided 50% sentence discrimination at 44.1 dB and SNR of -4.9 dB were measured. In patients 10 to 17 years old, mean word recognition improved from 18.5% to 89.0%, sentence reception threshold improved to 40.2 dB, and SNR to -3.6 dB. Comparison between age groups indicated a slight trend toward quicker adaptation by older subjects. However, after initial adjustment, a higher level of overall benefit was seen at 6 months in younger children. Currently, the only middle ear implant approved for pediatric patients, the Vibrant Soundbridge, provides an option in cases of congenital aural atresia or disease-induced defects, when surgical intervention and reconstruction is indicated. The 6-month results in this comparatively large study population validated conclusions found in previous trials.

1 September 2014 in Otology & Neurotology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PGPietro Giordano
Pietro Giordano
SHStavros Hatzopoulos
Stavros Hatzopoulos
NGNadia Giarbini
Nadia Giarbini
SPSilvano Prosser
Silvano Prosser
JPJoseph Petruccelli
Joseph Petruccelli
Alessandro MartiniAlessandro Martini
Alessandro Martini
Objective A “soft surgery” technique was applied, using various types of specifically designed dummy electrodes, to mimic cochlear implantation in a guinea pig model, and the degree of hearing-preservation/cochlear damage was assessed. Methods Tricolor guinea pigs were divided into 3 groups: group A were implanted with electrodes without any contacts or wires (soft electrode), group B were implanted with electrodes having a metallic wire inside (stiff electrode), and group C underwent a cochleostomy procedure without implantation. Compound action potentials, in the range of 4 to 32 kHz, were used to assess electrophysiologic changes in the hearing function presurgery and postsurgery. Data were collected before surgery, at times t = 0 (immediately after surgery) and at 3, 7, 14, and 30 days. Results At low frequencies (4–8 kHz), an immediate elevation of hearing threshold was observed in all 3 groups. Higher threshold shifts were more consistent for group B implanted with a stiff electrode, in comparison to the other 2 groups. Animals from group C presented a recovery from hearing loss, starting 3 days after surgery. At high frequencies (16–32 kHz), the elevation of hearing threshold was higher, as compared with the data from the low frequencies. Group C animals presented oscillatory threshold shifts twice, and the recovery to normal threshold values occurred approximately at t = 14 days. Conclusion The data suggest that cochleostomy is minimally harmful to the inner ear and that a soft electrode might better preserve the inner ear integrity than a rigid electrode.