Literature DB >> 23918623

Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience.

Oliver F Adunka1, Margaret T Dillon, Marcia C Adunka, English R King, Harold C Pillsbury, Craig A Buchman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To report on single-center data of an FDA-approved clinical trial on the objective benefits of cochlear implantation and subsequent ipsilateral Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS). STUDY
DESIGN: Single-center data from a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.
METHODS: Eighteen subjects completed the 12-month EAS evaluation and were included in this evaluation. Each patient underwent cochlear implantation using a standardized hearing preservation approach. Both hearing preservation and speech perception abilities were evaluated at various intervals. Speech testing included performance measures obtained in quiet (CNC words) and noise (adaptive CUNY protocol) in three listening conditions: hearing aid (HA) alone, cochlear implant (CI) only, and combined ipsilateral EAS.
RESULTS: Various levels of hearing preservation were achieved with cochleostomy and round-window surgical approaches in 17 of the 18 subjects. Mean CNC word scores at the 12-month interval were 14.9 ± 12.1, 45.3 ± 15.4, and 70.7 ± 11.7% correct in the HA only, CI only, and EAS conditions, respectively. Average CUNY scores at 0 dB SNR were 14.6 ± 17.2, 47.1 ± 22.1, and 72.2 ± 21.5 for the three test conditions obtained after 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Data obtained during this clinical trial correlate well with previous reports. Hearing preservation appears successful in a high number of subjects, and combined EAS offers excellent speech perception abilities in quiet and in noise. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Copyright © 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; electric-acoustic stimulation; hearing preservation; outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23918623     DOI: 10.1002/lary.23741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  15 in total

1.  Long-term residual hearing in cochlear implanted adult patients who were candidates for electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Elisabeth Mamelle; Benjamin Granger; Olivier Sterkers; Ghizlene Lahlou; Evelyne Ferrary; Yann Nguyen; Isabelle Mosnier
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Brendan P O'Connell; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 1.636

3.  Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; English R King; Ellen J Deres; Sarah N Obarowski; Meredith L Anderson; Marcia C Adunka
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2016-10-18

4.  Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  J Thomas Roland; Bruce J Gantz; Susan B Waltzman; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Delayed loss of hearing after hearing preservation cochlear implantation: Human temporal bone pathology and implications for etiology.

Authors:  Alicia M Quesnel; Hideko Heidi Nakajima; John J Rosowski; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 6.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

7.  Residual Cochlear Function in Adults and Children Receiving Cochlear Implants: Correlations With Speech Perception Outcomes.

Authors:  Tatyana Elizabeth Fontenot; Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Margaret Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Holly F Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin David Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Hybrid cochlear implantation: quality of life, quality of hearing, and working performance compared to patients with conventional unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Kati Härkönen; Ilkka Kivekäs; Voitto Kotti; Ville Sivonen; Juha-Pekka Vasama
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Adaptation of the Standardized Hearing Outcomes Scattergram to Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Perkins; Nauman F Manzoor; David S Haynes; Matthew O'Malley; René Gifford; Alejandro Rivas
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  The Reality of Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: Who Is Utilizing EAS?

Authors:  Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.