Literature DB >> 25415467

Straight versus modiolar hugging electrodes: does one perform better than the other?

Jayesh Doshi1, Peter Johnson, Deborah Mawman, Kevin Green, Iain A Bruce, Simon Freeman, Simon K W Lloyd.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in speech perception outcomes for patients who received a CI422 and a Contour cochlear implant. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-two adults who underwent cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation using a CI422 or Contour device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) speech perception scores at 3 and 9 months after activation.
RESULTS: The mean BKB scores at 3 months for the CI422 device were 86.0% in quiet and 55.1% in noise. This compares with 86.0% in quiet and 62.3% in noise for the Contour device. At 9 months, the mean BKB scores were 85.9% in quiet and 67.1% in noise for the CI422 and 90.1% in quiet and 77.6% in noise for the Contour device. There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between speech perception outcomes at 3 or 9 months.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that CI422 and Contour electrode both improve speech perception outcomes postoperatively, and there does not appear to be any significant difference in outcome between the two types of devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25415467     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000603

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  6 in total

1.  Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode Arrays.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; Robert J Yawn; Ashley M Nassiri; Robert T Dwyer; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Evaluation of Outcome Variability Associated With Lateral Wall, Mid-scalar, and Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays When Controlling for Preoperative Patient Characteristics.

Authors:  Joshua E Fabie; Robert G Keller; Jonathan L Hatch; Meredith A Holcomb; Elizabeth L Camposeo; Paul R Lambert; Ted A Meyer; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Factors Influencing Speech Perception in Adults With a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Floris Heutink; Berit M Verbist; Willem-Jan van der Woude; Tamara J Meulman; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns; Priya Vart; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

Review 4.  Challenging aspects of contemporary cochlear implant electrode array design.

Authors:  Pavel Mistrík; Claude Jolly; Daniel Sieber; Ingeborg Hochmair
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-30

5.  Angular Electrode Insertion Depth and Speech Perception in Adults With a Cochlear Implant: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Floris Heutink; Simone R de Rijk; Berit M Verbist; Wendy J Huinck; Emmanuel A M Mylanus
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Evaluating cochlear insertion trauma and hearing preservation after cochlear implantation (CIPRES): a study protocol for a randomized single-blind controlled trial.

Authors:  Saad Jwair; Ralf A Boerboom; Huib Versnel; Robert J Stokroos; Hans G X M Thomeer
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.