Literature DB >> 33477270

Correlation between Speech Perception Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation and Postoperative Acoustic and Electric Hearing Thresholds.

Ursina Rüegg1,2, Adrian Dalbert1,2, Dorothe Veraguth1,2, Christof Röösli1,2, Alexander Huber1,2, Flurin Pfiffner1,2.   

Abstract

The reliable prediction of cochlear implant (CI) speech perception outcomes is highly relevant and can facilitate the monitoring of postoperative hearing performance. To date, multiple audiometric, demographic, and surgical variables have shown some degree of correlation with CI speech perception outcomes. In the present study, postsurgical acoustic and electric hearing thresholds that are routinely assessed in clinical practice were compared to CI speech perception outcomes in order to reveal possible markers of postoperative cochlear health. A total of 237 CI recipients were included in this retrospective monocentric study. An analysis of the correlation of postoperative pure-tone averages (PTAs) and electric CI fitting thresholds (T-/C-levels) with speech perception scores for monosyllabic words in quiet was performed. Additionally, a correlation analysis was performed for postoperative acoustic thresholds in intracochlear electrocochleography (EcochG) and speech recognition scores in a smaller group (n = 14). The results show that neither postoperative acoustic hearing thresholds nor electric thresholds correlate with postoperative speech perception outcomes, and they do not serve as independent predictors of speech perception outcomes. By contrast, the postoperative intracochlear total EcochG response was significantly correlated with speech perception. Since the EcochG recordings were only performed in a small population, a large study is required to clarify the usefulness of this promising predictive parameter.

Entities:  

Keywords:  audiometry; cochlear implant; electrocochleography; hearing test; speech perception

Year:  2021        PMID: 33477270      PMCID: PMC7830395          DOI: 10.3390/jcm10020324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Med        ISSN: 2077-0383            Impact factor:   4.241


  40 in total

1.  Cochlear response telemetry: intracochlear electrocochleography via cochlear implant neural response telemetry pilot study results.

Authors:  Luke Campbell; Arielle Kaicer; Robert Briggs; Stephen O'Leary
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Population-based prediction of fitting levels for individual cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Feddo B van der Beek; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human.

Authors:  Takefumi Kamakura; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Electrocochleography and Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Eleonora M C Trecca; William J Riggs; Jameson K Mattingly; Meghan M Hiss; Michele Cassano; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Thomas J Balkany; Sarah S Connell; Annelle V Hodges; Stacy L Payne; Fred F Telischi; Adrien A Eshraghi; Simon I Angeli; Ross Germani; Sarah Messiah; Kristopher L Arheart
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

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

7.  Residual Cochlear Function in Adults and Children Receiving Cochlear Implants: Correlations With Speech Perception Outcomes.

Authors:  Tatyana Elizabeth Fontenot; Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Margaret Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Holly F Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin David Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Maximum preimplantation monosyllabic score as predictor of cochlear implant outcome.

Authors:  Ulrich Hoppe; Thomas Hocke; Anne Hast; Heinrich Iro
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  A psychoacoustic application for the adjustment of electrical hearing thresholds in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Johannes Plesch; Benjamin P Ernst; Sebastian Strieth; Tobias Rader
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time.

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

View more
  1 in total

1.  External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability.

Authors:  David S Lee; Jacques A Herzog; Amit Walia; Jill B Firszt; Kevin Y Zhan; Nedim Durakovic; Cameron C Wick; Craig A Buchman; Matthew A Shew
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 2.619

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.