Literature DB >> 33855073

Response to: Comment on "The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes".

Jafri Kuthubutheen1, Amandeep Grewal2, Sean Symons2,3, Julian Nedzelski2,3, David Shipp2,3, Vincent Lin2,3, Joseph Chen2,3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33855073      PMCID: PMC8019364          DOI: 10.1155/2021/6294914

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Res Int            Impact factor:   3.411


× No keyword cloud information.
We thank the authors Eser et al. for their comments [1] on our manuscript entitled “The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes” [2]. We agree that the effect of cochlear size on cochlear outcomes is very topical and that much research still needs to be done in order to determine the relationship between the two variables. As we discussed in our paper, there are a number of possible explanations for the correlation between cochlear size and speech outcomes only seen with the shorter electrode. These include factors related to insertion trauma and postoperative electrode movement. We also do not believe that absolute spiral ganglion counts or tonotopy is the reason for this observed correlation. However, this does not mean that these are not factors contributing to this correlation. For example, spiral ganglion distribution rather than absolute spiral ganglion counts may be important, particularly in those patients with better residual hearing function (preoperative consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word score) which was the case in our group who received the shorter electrode. We decided in our study not to measure the apical turn of the cochlea because we felt that the challenges of obtaining an accurate result using our described technique would outweigh the benefits of obtaining this data. We agree that understanding the apical anatomy of the cochlea is important, particularly when using lateral wall electrodes. The authors correctly pointed out the error in Table 3 where the values of the outer wall length to 360 degrees should actually be those for the outer wall length to 720 degrees and vice versa. This has now been corrected [3]. The p values can be derived statistically from the correlation coefficient and the number of pairs. In this case, there are 21 pairs of data for the Flex 28 group. Therefore, the correlation between Ac and CNC (%) is 0.64 which has a p value of 0.00178, and the correlation between outer wall length and CNC (%) is 0.71 which has a p value of 0.000311. Similarly, the correlation between Ac and AZBIO (%) is 0.46 which has a p value of 0.03589, and the correlation between outer wall length and AZBIO (%) is 0.47 which has a p value of 0.031561.
  3 in total

1.  Corrigendum to "The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes".

Authors:  Jafri Kuthubutheen; Amandeep Grewal; Sean Symons; Julian Nedzelski; David Shipp; Vincent Lin; Joseph Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes.

Authors:  Jafri Kuthubutheen; Amandeep Grewal; Sean Symons; Julian Nedzelski; David Shipp; Vincent Lin; Joseph Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Comment on "The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes".

Authors:  M Bilgin Eser; Başak Atalay; M Tayyar Kalcıoğlu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 3.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.