Literature DB >> 28608735

Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter?

Leila J Mady1, Daniel C Sukato1, Jenifer Fruit1, Catherine Palmer1,2, Yael Raz1,3, Barry E Hirsch1,2, Andrew A McCall1.   

Abstract

Objective Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained ≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7% received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3% received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P < .05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8%, P < .05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP ( P < .05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis ( P < .05). Conclusion The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atraumatic electrodes; cochlear implantation; electroacoustic stimulation; full-length electrodes; functional hearing; hearing aid; hearing preservation; low-frequency hearing; minimally traumatic surgery; multivariate analysis; residual hearing; soft surgery; speech recognition scores; univariate analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28608735     DOI: 10.1177/0194599817707167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  5 in total

Review 1.  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

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.  Hearing Preservation With the Use of Flex20 and Flex24 Electrodes in Patients With Partial Deafness.

Authors:  Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Beata Dziendziel; Joanna J Rajchel; Elzbieta Gos; Artur Lorens
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Surgical approach for complete cochlear coverage in EAS-patients after residual hearing loss.

Authors:  Nora M Weiss; Anandhan Dhanasingh; Sebastian P Schraven; Marko Schulze; Soenke Langner; Robert Mlynski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Evaluation of hearing preservation in adults with a slim perimodiolar electrode.

Authors:  Sonja Ludwig; Niklas Riemann; Stefan Hans; Florian Christov; Johannes Maximilian Ludwig; Judith Saxe; Diana Arweiler-Harbeck
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.503

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.