Elisabeth Mamelle1,2, Benjamin Granger3, Olivier Sterkers4,5, Ghizlene Lahlou4,5, Evelyne Ferrary4,5, Yann Nguyen4,5, Isabelle Mosnier4,5. 1. Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Réhabilitation chirurgicale mini-invasive et robotisée de l'audition, Paris, France. elisabeth.mamelle@aphp.fr. 2. Otolaryngology Department, Otology, Auditory Implants and Skull Base Surgery Unit, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Bâtiment Paul Castaigne, 50-52 boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France. elisabeth.mamelle@aphp.fr. 3. Public Health Department, AP-HP, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. 4. Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Réhabilitation chirurgicale mini-invasive et robotisée de l'audition, Paris, France. 5. Otolaryngology Department, Otology, Auditory Implants and Skull Base Surgery Unit, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Bâtiment Paul Castaigne, 50-52 boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term hearing outcomes in cochlear implanted adults with residual hearing at low frequencies, and the proportion of patients using electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS). METHODS: A monocentric retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center. Population demographics, surgical approach, pre- and postoperative hearing at low frequencies, in the implanted and contralateral ear, were recorded as well as duration of EAS use. The percentage hearing preservation was calculated according to the formula S (HEARRING group). RESULTS: In total, 63 adults (81 ears) with residual hearing underwent cochlear implantation with intent to use EAS processors. Six different types of electrode array were implanted. The mean pure tone audiometry (PTA) shift after cochlear implantation was 16 ± 15 dB HL (range 0-59 dB HL). Half of the implanted ears had minimal hearing preservation or total hearing loss (HL) at 5.5 years and the cumulative risk of total HL was 50% at 7 years. During the follow-up, total HL occurred in 22 ears. The decrease in hearing levels was similar in both implanted and contralateral ear during follow-up (ns, F = 2.46 ± 3, Linear Mixed Model (LMM)). Only 44 patients found a benefit from EAS at the first fitting. At the last visit, EAS processors were fitted in 30% of the cases. The pre- and postoperative mean PTA thresholds were not predictive of EAS use (Cox's proportional hazards analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative residual hearing was observed in 93% of implanted ears, but only half of them had an initial benefit from EAS. No predictive factors were found to influence the use of EAS processors.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term hearing outcomes in cochlear implanted adults with residual hearing at low frequencies, and the proportion of patients using electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS). METHODS: A monocentric retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center. Population demographics, surgical approach, pre- and postoperative hearing at low frequencies, in the implanted and contralateral ear, were recorded as well as duration of EAS use. The percentage hearing preservation was calculated according to the formula S (HEARRING group). RESULTS: In total, 63 adults (81 ears) with residual hearing underwent cochlear implantation with intent to use EAS processors. Six different types of electrode array were implanted. The mean pure tone audiometry (PTA) shift after cochlear implantation was 16 ± 15 dB HL (range 0-59 dB HL). Half of the implanted ears had minimal hearing preservation or total hearing loss (HL) at 5.5 years and the cumulative risk of total HL was 50% at 7 years. During the follow-up, total HL occurred in 22 ears. The decrease in hearing levels was similar in both implanted and contralateral ear during follow-up (ns, F = 2.46 ± 3, Linear Mixed Model (LMM)). Only 44 patients found a benefit from EAS at the first fitting. At the last visit, EAS processors were fitted in 30% of the cases. The pre- and postoperative mean PTA thresholds were not predictive of EAS use (Cox's proportional hazards analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative residual hearing was observed in 93% of implanted ears, but only half of them had an initial benefit from EAS. No predictive factors were found to influence the use of EAS processors.
Authors: Henryk Skarzynski; P van de Heyning; S Agrawal; S L Arauz; M Atlas; W Baumgartner; M Caversaccio; M de Bodt; J Gavilan; B Godey; K Green; W Gstoettner; R Hagen; D M Han; M Kameswaran; E Karltorp; M Kompis; V Kuzovkov; L Lassaletta; F Levevre; Y Li; M Manikoth; J Martin; R Mlynski; J Mueller; M O'Driscoll; L Parnes; S Prentiss; S Pulibalathingal; C H Raine; G Rajan; R Rajeswaran; J A Rivas; A Rivas; P H Skarzynski; G Sprinzl; H Staecker; K Stephan; S Usami; Y Yanov; M E Zernotti; K Zimmermann; A Lorens; G Mertens Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Suppl Date: 2013
Authors: Chris James; Klaus Albegger; Rolf Battmer; Sandro Burdo; Naima Deggouj; Olivier Deguine; Norbert Dillier; Michel Gersdorff; Roland Laszig; Thomas Lenarz; Manuel Manrique Rodriguez; Michel Mondain; Erwin Offeciers; Angel Ramos Macías; Richard Ramsden; Olivier Sterkers; Ernst Von Wallenberg; Benno Weber; Bernard Fraysse Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Thomas Lenarz; Timo Stöver; Andreas Buechner; Anke Lesinski-Schiedat; Jim Patrick; Joerg Pesch Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Jacob B Hunter; René H Gifford; George B Wanna; Robert F Labadie; Marc L Bennett; David S Haynes; Alejandro Rivas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311