OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of contralateral residual hearing in a large group of cochlear implant recipients with different degrees of residual hearing. PATIENTS: One hundred and forty-one adult patients (age in years: mean 58.82, min 16.27, max 88.20) wearing a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid, bimodal. INTERVENTION: Rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All 141 patients underwent speech perception testing in quiet and noise with cochlear implant (CI) alone, and with CI and hearing aid (HA). Additionally, pure-tone air conduction threshold levels were measured in all subjects. The bimodal benefit was analyzed and correlations to the hearing threshold for different audiometric frequencies were calculated. RESULTS: Comparison between the scores for CI alone and CI + HA showed statistically significant advantages (p < 0.0001) in all four tests. The benefit for sentences in noise to each individual patient showed a negative correlation with the hearing threshold level of 125 Hz and 250 Hz, using a linear regression analysis applying the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient (r = -0.32, -0.232), and a significant difference at p = 0.006, p = 0.007. The correlations involving speech understanding in sentences in noise, and the hearing level of 500 Hz and above, are not significant for the benefit obtained with a contralateral hearing aid. CONCLUSION: The benefit of combined electric and acoustic hearing in bimodally fitted subjects depends mainly on residual hearing in the low-frequency range below 500 Hz. For bimodal fitting to yield significant benefits, hearing loss in the contralateral ear should not exceed 80 dB HL in the low frequencies.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of contralateral residual hearing in a large group of cochlear implant recipients with different degrees of residual hearing. PATIENTS: One hundred and forty-one adult patients (age in years: mean 58.82, min 16.27, max 88.20) wearing a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid, bimodal. INTERVENTION: Rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All 141 patients underwent speech perception testing in quiet and noise with cochlear implant (CI) alone, and with CI and hearing aid (HA). Additionally, pure-tone air conduction threshold levels were measured in all subjects. The bimodal benefit was analyzed and correlations to the hearing threshold for different audiometric frequencies were calculated. RESULTS: Comparison between the scores for CI alone and CI + HA showed statistically significant advantages (p < 0.0001) in all four tests. The benefit for sentences in noise to each individual patient showed a negative correlation with the hearing threshold level of 125 Hz and 250 Hz, using a linear regression analysis applying the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient (r = -0.32, -0.232), and a significant difference at p = 0.006, p = 0.007. The correlations involving speech understanding in sentences in noise, and the hearing level of 500 Hz and above, are not significant for the benefit obtained with a contralateral hearing aid. CONCLUSION: The benefit of combined electric and acoustic hearing in bimodally fitted subjects depends mainly on residual hearing in the low-frequency range below 500 Hz. For bimodal fitting to yield significant benefits, hearing loss in the contralateral ear should not exceed 80 dB HL in the low frequencies.
Authors: Jantien L Vroegop; Nienke C Homans; André Goedegebure; J Gertjan Dingemanse; Teun van Immerzeel; Marc P van der Schroeff Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Elke M J Devocht; A Miranda L Janssen; Josef Chalupper; Robert J Stokroos; Erwin L J George Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elke M J Devocht; A Miranda L Janssen; Josef Chalupper; Robert J Stokroos; Erwin L J George Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2017 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.293