Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems

被引:84
|
作者
Ramsden, R
Greenham, P
O'Driscoll, M
Mawman, D
Proops, D
Craddock, L
Fielden, C
Graham, J
Meerton, L
Verschuur, C
Toner, J
McAnallen, T
Osborne, J
Doran, M
Gray, R
Pickerill, M
机构
[1] Manchester Royal Infirm, Manchester M13 9WL, Lancs, England
[2] Cochlear Europe Ltd, London, England
[3] Midlands Cochlear Implant Proramme, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[4] UCL, Nuffield Cochlear Implant Programme, London, England
[5] S England Cochlear Implant Programme, Southampton, Hants, England
[6] Belfast Cochlear Implant Programme, Belfast, Antrim, North Ireland
[7] N Wales Cochlear Implant Programme, Glan Clwyd, Wales
[8] Cambridge Cochlear Implant Programme, Cambridge, England
关键词
cochlear implants; bilateral; nucleus; 24; adults; speech perception;
D O I
10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Study Design: Repeated measures. Patients: Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. Setting: Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. Main Outcome Measures: Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/- 90. Results: At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p < 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p < 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 6% (p < 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. Conclusions: There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.
引用
收藏
页码:988 / 998
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Benefits from upgrade to the CP810™ sound processor for Nucleus® 24 cochlear implant recipients
    Isabelle Mosnier
    Mathieu Marx
    Frederic Venail
    Natalie Loundon
    Samantha Roux-Vaillard
    Olivier Sterkers
    European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2014, 271 : 49 - 57
  • [42] Benefits from upgrade to the CP810™ sound processor for Nucleus® 24 cochlear implant recipients
    Mosnier, Isabelle
    Marx, Mathieu
    Venail, Frederic
    Loundon, Natalie
    Roux-Vaillard, Samantha
    Sterkers, Olivier
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2014, 271 (01) : 49 - 57
  • [43] Use of neural response telemetry measures to objectively set the comfort levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant
    King, John E.
    Polak, Marek
    Hodges, Annelle V.
    Payne, Stacy
    Telischi, Fred F.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY, 2006, 17 (06) : 413 - 431
  • [44] Evaluation of a New Design to Improve the Flexibility of the Nucleus Standard Straight Array Cochlear Implant
    Benjamin Kuan Chen
    Sive Naidoo Lingamanaik
    Roger La Brooy
    Romesh Nagarajah
    ChineseJournalofBiomedicalEngineering, 2018, 27 (04) : 178 - 184
  • [45] Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus® 6 cochlear implant system: Performance improvements with SmartSound iQ
    Mauger, Stefan J.
    Warren, Chris D.
    Knight, Michelle R.
    Goorevich, Michael
    Nel, Esti
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2014, 53 (08) : 564 - 576
  • [46] A multicentre clinical evaluation of paediatric cochlear implant users upgrading to the Nucleus® 6 system
    Plasmans, Anke
    Rushbrooke, Emma
    Moran, Michelle
    Spence, Claire
    Theuwis, Leen
    Zarowski, Andrzej
    Offeciers, Erwin
    Atkinson, Beth
    McGovern, Jane
    Dornan, Dimity
    Leigh, Jaime
    Kaicer, Arielle
    Hollow, Rod
    Martelli, Leigh
    Looi, Valerie
    Nel, Esti
    Del Dot, Janine
    Cowan, Robert
    Mauger, Stefan J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2016, 83 (04) : 193 - 199
  • [47] Hearing Preservation Outcomes with Different Cochlear Implant Electrodes: Nucleus® Hybrid™-L24 and Nucleus Freedom™ CI422
    Jurawitz, Marie-Charlot
    Buechner, Andreas
    Harpel, Theo
    Schuessler, Mark
    Majdani, Omid
    Lesinski-Schiedat, Anke
    Lenarz, Thomas
    AUDIOLOGY AND NEURO-OTOLOGY, 2014, 19 (05) : 293 - 309
  • [48] A model of a Nucleus 24 cochlear implant fitting protocol based on the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential
    Franck, KH
    EAR AND HEARING, 2002, 23 (01): : 67S - 71S
  • [49] Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients
    Potts, Lisa G.
    Skinner, Margaret W.
    Gotter, Brenda D.
    Strube, Michael J.
    Brenner, Chris A.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2007, 28 (04): : 495 - 511
  • [50] EVALUATION OF A NEW SPECTRAL PEAK CODING STRATEGY FOR THE NUCLEUS 22 CHANNEL COCHLEAR IMPLANT SYSTEM
    SKINNER, MW
    CLARK, GM
    WHITFORD, LA
    SELIGMAN, PM
    STALLER, SJ
    SHIPP, DB
    SHALLOP, JK
    EVERINGHAM, C
    MENAPACE, CM
    ARNDT, PL
    ANTOGENELLI, T
    BRIMACOMBE, JA
    PIJL, S
    DANIELS, P
    GEORGE, CR
    MCDERMOTT, HJ
    BEITER, AL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY, 1994, 15 : 15 - 27