Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter?

被引:28
|
作者
Mady, Leila J. [1 ]
Sukato, Daniel C. [1 ]
Fruit, Jenifer [1 ]
Palmer, Catherine [1 ,2 ]
Raz, Yael [1 ,3 ]
Hirsch, Barry E. [1 ,2 ]
McCall, Andrew A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Otolaryngol, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[3] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Portland, OR 97201 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
cochlear implantation; hearing preservation; functional hearing; residual hearing; low-frequency hearing; full-length electrodes; atraumatic electrodes; hearing aid; electroacoustic stimulation; soft surgery; minimally traumatic surgery; speech recognition scores; univariate analysis; multivariate analysis; LOW-FREQUENCY HEARING; RESIDUAL ACOUSTIC HEARING; COCHLEAR IMPLANT-SURGERY; FLEXSOFT ELECTRODE; CONSERVATION; STIMULATION; BENEFITS; IMPACT; NOISE; USERS;
D O I
10.1177/0194599817707167
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Objective Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained 85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7% received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3% received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P < .05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8%, P < .05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP (P < .05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis (P < .05). Conclusion The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.
引用
收藏
页码:837 / 847
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Does choice of antiretroviral drugs matter for inflammation?
    del Mar Gutierrez, Maria
    Gracia Mateo, Maria
    Vidal, Francesc
    Domingo, Pere
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2019, 12 (05) : 389 - 396
  • [42] DOES THE CHOICE OF POVERTY INDEX MATTER IN PRACTICE
    RODGERS, JR
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 1991, 24 (03) : 233 - 252
  • [43] Does Intraoperative Electrocochleography Improve Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation?
    Kelly, Scott M.
    Kim, Ana H.
    Lalwani, Anil K.
    [J]. LARYNGOSCOPE, 2024, 134 (04): : 1496 - 1497
  • [44] One Year Assessment of the Hearing Preservation Potential of the EVO Electrode Array
    Guevara, Nicolas
    Parietti-Winkler, Cecile
    Godey, Benoit
    Franco-Vidal, Valerie
    Gnansia, Dan
    Ardoint, Marine
    Hoen, Michel
    Karoui, Chadlia
    Truy, Eric
    Vincent, Christophe
    Mosnier, Isabelle
    Nguyen, Yann
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (23)
  • [45] Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation with Slim Modiolar Electrode Comment
    Volkenstein, Stefan
    [J]. LARYNGO-RHINO-OTOLOGIE, 2020, 99 (03) : 138 - +
  • [46] Hearing Preservation Outcomes With a Mid-Scala Electrode in Cochlear Implantation
    Hunter, Jacob B.
    Gifford, Rene H.
    Wanna, George B.
    Labadie, Robert F.
    Bennett, Marc L.
    Haynes, David S.
    Rivas, Alejandro
    [J]. OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2016, 37 (03) : 235 - 240
  • [47] Hearing Loss: Why Does It Matter for Nursing Homes?
    McCreedy, Ellen M.
    Weinstein, Barbara E.
    Chodosh, Joshua
    Blustein, Jan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, 2018, 19 (04) : 323 - 327
  • [48] DOES SOLUTION VISCOSITY REALLY MATTER IN ORGAN PRESERVATION?
    Boffa, Catherine
    De Leemkolk, Fenna Van
    Lo Faro, Letizia
    Owen, Joshua
    Reddy, Srikanth
    Hart, Nils T.
    Leuvenink, Henri
    Sharples, Edward
    Ploeg, Rutger
    [J]. TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 30 : 67 - 68
  • [49] Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode
    Iso-Mustajarvi, Matti
    Sipari, Sini
    Lopponen, Heikki
    Dietz, Aarno
    [J]. EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2020, 277 (02) : 367 - 375
  • [50] Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode
    Matti Iso-Mustajärvi
    Sini Sipari
    Heikki Löppönen
    Aarno Dietz
    [J]. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2020, 277 : 367 - 375