Xiaoting Cheng1,2, Bing Wang1,2, Yangwenyi Liu1,2, Yasheng Yuan1,2, Yilai Shu1,2, Bing Chen3,4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Eye and Ear, Nose, Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. NHC Key Laboratory of Hearing Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Eye and Ear, Nose, Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, Chinabingchen@fudan.edu.cn. 4. NHC Key Laboratory of Hearing Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai, Chinabingchen@fudan.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether cochlear implantation using the round window (RW) route versus cochleostomy achieves comparable electrode impedance and hearing results. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 40 patients receiving a cochlear implant (REZ-1): 20 using the RW approach and the remaining 20 using cochleostomy. Electrode impedance and tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception were measured during and after the implantation. RESULTS: Electrode impedance did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at any time points [F(1, 38) = 1.84; p = 0.184]: 1.87, 5.16, 6.47 and 6.70 kΩ in the RW group versus 2.86, 5.33, 6.92 and 8.16 kΩ in the cochleostomy group at 0, 1, 3 and 12 months, respectively. There was no significant difference between the RW and cochleostomy groups for tone (77.50 vs. 80.50%; p = 0.472), vowel (77.70 vs. 78.65%; p = 0.760), consonant (75.50 vs. 78.25%; p = 0.443), disyllable (78.60 vs. 81.50%; p = 0.317) and sentence (50.90 vs. 52.50%; p = 0.684) perception at 12 months. CONCLUSION: The RW approach is comparable to cochleostomy in electrode placement as reflected by impedance and function as reflected by tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether cochlear implantation using the round window (RW) route versus cochleostomy achieves comparable electrode impedance and hearing results. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 40 patients receiving a cochlear implant (REZ-1): 20 using the RW approach and the remaining 20 using cochleostomy. Electrode impedance and tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception were measured during and after the implantation. RESULTS: Electrode impedance did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at any time points [F(1, 38) = 1.84; p = 0.184]: 1.87, 5.16, 6.47 and 6.70 kΩ in the RW group versus 2.86, 5.33, 6.92 and 8.16 kΩ in the cochleostomy group at 0, 1, 3 and 12 months, respectively. There was no significant difference between the RW and cochleostomy groups for tone (77.50 vs. 80.50%; p = 0.472), vowel (77.70 vs. 78.65%; p = 0.760), consonant (75.50 vs. 78.25%; p = 0.443), disyllable (78.60 vs. 81.50%; p = 0.317) and sentence (50.90 vs. 52.50%; p = 0.684) perception at 12 months. CONCLUSION: The RW approach is comparable to cochleostomy in electrode placement as reflected by impedance and function as reflected by tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception.