Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode Arrays

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Characterize differences in adult cochlear implant outcomes and programming parameters for a straight (CI422/522) and a precurved (CI532) electrode array. Cochlear implant (CI) program at a tertiary otologic center. Fifty-eight adults were included in the study; 29 were implanted with CI422 or CI522 and 29 were implanted with CI532. Each CI532 recipient was matched to a CI422/522 recipient in terms of age and preoperative hearing thresholds for comparison purposes. Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words, AzBio sentences, residual audiometric thresholds, and Speech Spatial Qualities (SSQ) questionnaire collected 6 months postoperatively were used to characterize outcomes. Pulse duration, maxima, impedances, and overall charge measurements were used to characterize programming parameters. Postoperative unaided low frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) was significantly better for the CI532 group. CNC scores were significantly better for the CI532 group. Impedances and pulse duration were significantly lower for the CI532 group, but there was no difference in overall charge between the groups. The CI532 group showed either similar or statistically superior results on all measures when compared with the CI422/522 suggesting that the CI532 electrode may be an advantageous substitute for the CI522.

Related collections

Most cited references 40

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Laura Holden, Charles C Finley, Jill Firszt … (2015)

A great deal of variability exists in the speech-recognition abilities of postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. A number of previous studies have shown that duration of deafness is a primary factor affecting CI outcomes; however, there is little agreement regarding other factors that may affect performance. The objective of the present study was to determine the source of variability in CI outcomes by examining three main factors, biographic/audiologic information, electrode position within the cochlea, and cognitive abilities in a group of newly implanted CI recipients. Participants were 114 postlingually deaf adults with either the Cochlear or Advanced Bionics CI systems. Biographic/audiologic information, aided sentence-recognition scores, a high resolution temporal bone CT scan and cognitive measures were obtained before implantation. Monosyllabic word recognition scores were obtained during numerous test intervals from 2 weeks to 2 years after initial activation of the CI. Electrode position within the cochlea was determined by three-dimensional reconstruction of pre- and postimplant CT scans. Participants' word scores over 2 years were fit with a logistic curve to predict word score as a function of time and to highlight 4-word recognition metrics (CNC initial score, CNC final score, rise time to 90% of CNC final score, and CNC difference score). Participants were divided into six outcome groups based on the percentile ranking of their CNC final score, that is, participants in the bottom 10% were in group 1; those in the top 10% were in group 6. Across outcome groups, significant relationships from low to high performance were identified. Biographic/audiologic factors of age at implantation, duration of hearing loss, duration of hearing aid use, and duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss were significantly and inversely related to performance as were frequency modulated tone, sound-field threshold levels obtained with the CI. That is, the higher-performing outcome groups were younger in age at the time of implantation, had shorter duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss, and had lower CI sound-field threshold levels. Significant inverse relationships across outcome groups were also observed for electrode position, specifically the percentage of electrodes in scala vestibuli as opposed to scala tympani and depth of insertion of the electrode array. In addition, positioning of electrode arrays closer to the modiolar wall was positively correlated with outcome. Cognitive ability was significantly and positively related to outcome; however, age at implantation and cognition were highly correlated. After controlling for age, cognition was no longer a factor affecting outcomes. There are a number of factors that limit CI outcomes. They can act singularly or collectively to restrict an individual's performance and to varying degrees. The highest performing CI recipients are those with the least number of limiting factors. Knowledge of when and how these factors affect performance can favorably influence counseling, device fitting, and rehabilitation for individual patients and can contribute to improved device design and application.

0 comments Cited 200 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients.

Jean-Paul de Vries, Robert Burke, Isabelle Mosnier … (2013)

To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Retrospective multicenter study. Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.

0 comments Cited 170 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time

Diane S Lazard, Christophe Vincent, Frédéric Venail … (2012)

Objective To test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors. Study Design Retrospective multi-centre study. Methods Data from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses. Results The significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL. Conclusions A new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance.