OBJECTIVE: Determine the impact of electrode array selection on audiometric performance when controlling for baseline patient characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of a prospective cochlear implant (CI) database (January 1, 2012-May 31, 2017). SETTING: Tertiary Care University Hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-eight adult CI recipients. INTERVENTIONS/MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Hearing outcomes were measured through unaided/aided pure tone thresholds and speech recognition testing before and after cochlear implantation. All reported postoperative results were performed at least 6 months after CI activation. All device manufacturers were represented. RESULTS: Of the 328 patients, 234 received lateral wall (LW) arrays, 46 received perimodiolar (PM) arrays, and 48 received mid-scalar (MS) arrays. Patients receiving PM arrays had significantly poorer preoperative earphone and aided PTAs and SRTs, and aided Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant(CNC) word and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with patients receiving LW arrays (all p ≤ 0.04), and poorer PTAs and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with MS recipients (all p ≤ 0.02). No preoperative audiological variables were found to significantly differ between MS and LW patients. After controlling for preoperative residual hearing and speech recognition ability in a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, no statistically significant difference in audiological outcomes was detected (CNC words, AzBio quiet, or AzBio +10 SNR) among the three electrode array types (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: While previous studies have demonstrated superior postoperative speech recognition scores in LW electrode array recipients, these differences lose significance when controlling for baseline hearing and speech recognition ability. These data demonstrate the proclivity for implanting individuals with greater residual hearing with LW electrodes and its impact on postoperative results.
OBJECTIVE: Determine the impact of electrode array selection on audiometric performance when controlling for baseline patient characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of a prospective cochlear implant (CI) database (January 1, 2012-May 31, 2017). SETTING: Tertiary Care University Hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-eight adult CI recipients. INTERVENTIONS/MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Hearing outcomes were measured through unaided/aided pure tone thresholds and speech recognition testing before and after cochlear implantation. All reported postoperative results were performed at least 6 months after CI activation. All device manufacturers were represented. RESULTS: Of the 328 patients, 234 received lateral wall (LW) arrays, 46 received perimodiolar (PM) arrays, and 48 received mid-scalar (MS) arrays. Patients receiving PM arrays had significantly poorer preoperative earphone and aided PTAs and SRTs, and aided Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant(CNC) word and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with patients receiving LW arrays (all p ≤ 0.04), and poorer PTAs and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with MS recipients (all p ≤ 0.02). No preoperative audiological variables were found to significantly differ between MS and LW patients. After controlling for preoperative residual hearing and speech recognition ability in a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, no statistically significant difference in audiological outcomes was detected (CNC words, AzBio quiet, or AzBio +10 SNR) among the three electrode array types (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: While previous studies have demonstrated superior postoperative speech recognition scores in LW electrode array recipients, these differences lose significance when controlling for baseline hearing and speech recognition ability. These data demonstrate the proclivity for implanting individuals with greater residual hearing with LW electrodes and its impact on postoperative results.
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: Matthew L Carlson; Colin L W Driscoll; René H Gifford; Geoffrey J Service; Nicole M Tombers; Becky J Hughes-Borst; Brian A Neff; Charles W Beatty Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Jayesh Doshi; Peter Johnson; Deborah Mawman; Kevin Green; Iain A Bruce; Simon Freeman; Simon K W Lloyd Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Brendan P O'Connell; Jacob B Hunter; René H Gifford; Alejandro Rivas; David S Haynes; Jack H Noble; George B Wanna Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Marek Polak; Colin L W Driscoll; Peter Roland; Craig A Buchman Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Arne H Voie; Barry Brunsden; J Gail Neely; Eugene A Saxon; Timothy E Hullar; Charles C Finley Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl Date: 2007-04
Authors: Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Harold C Pillsbury; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Hinrich Staecker; Sandra M Prentiss; Michael J Ruckenstein; Douglas C Bigelow; Fred F Telischi; Diane M Martinez; Christina L Runge; David R Friedland; Nikolas H Blevins; Jannine B Larky; George Alexiades; David M Kaylie; Peter S Roland; Richard T Miyamoto; Douglas D Backous; Frank M Warren; Hussam K El-Kashlan; Heidi K Slager; Carisa Reyes; Allison I Racey; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Elise E Zhao; James R Dornhoffer; Catherine Loftus; Shaun A Nguyen; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
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
Authors: Christopher K Giardina; Michael W Canfarotta; Nicholas J Thompson; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Sarah E Hodge; Jenna Baker; Brendan P O'Connell Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.619