OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aims of this study were to investigate short- and long-term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes and air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz. RESULTS: The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short-term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.95, P < .001) and long-term follow-up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid-scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4-8.6, P = .009) and 5.6-times (95% CI: 1.8-17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short-term follow-up, respectively. Long-term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6-36.1, P = .01), but not mid-scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4-23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long-term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long-term functional hearing preservation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:482-489, 2018.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aims of this study were to investigate short- and long-term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS:Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes and air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air-conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz. RESULTS: The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short-term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.95, P < .001) and long-term follow-up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid-scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4-8.6, P = .009) and 5.6-times (95% CI: 1.8-17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short-term follow-up, respectively. Long-term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6-36.1, P = .01), but not mid-scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4-23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long-term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long-term functional hearing preservation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:482-489, 2018.
Authors: George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Yoon Chan Rah; Min Young Lee; Shin Hye Kim; Doo Hee Kim; Hayden Eastwood; Stephen J O'Leary; Jun Ho Lee Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Maura K Cosetti; David R Friedmann; Bovey Z Zhu; Selena E Heman-Ackah; Yixin Fang; Robert G Keller; William H Shapiro; J Thomas Roland; Susan B Waltzman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen; Christopher W Turner; Jacob J Oleson; Lina A Reiss; Aaron J Parkinson Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Peter L Santa Maria; Chloe Domville-Lewis; Catherine M Sucher; Ronel Chester-Browne; Marcus D Atlas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: Konrad Johannes Stuermer; David Schwarz; Andreas Anagiotos; Ruth Lang-Roth; Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink; Jan Christoffer Luers Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Ashley M Nassiri; Robert J Yawn; René H Gifford; David S Haynes; Jillian B Roberts; Max S Gilbane; Jack Murfee; Marc L Bennett Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 1.664
Authors: Amit Walia; Matthew A Shew; Abhinav Ettyreddy; Shannon M Lefler; Pawina Jiramongkolchai; Cameron C Wick; Nedim Durakovic; Craig A Buchman; Jacques A Herzog Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Christopher K Giardina; Kevin D Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kendall A Hutson; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
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
Authors: Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.311