The Role of Hearing Preservation on Electrical Thresholds and Speech Performances in Cochlear Implantation

D’Elia, Alessandra; Bartoli, R; Giagnotti, Francesca; Quaranta, Nicola

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3182487dbb

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 ) has been frequently reported in the literature [Baudhuin et al, 2012;Botros and Psarros, 2010;Cafarelli et al, 2005;D'Elia et al, 2012;Lai et al, 2009;Miller et al, 2008;Polak et al, 2005;Smoorenburg et al, 2002;Thai-Van et al, 2001;van der Beek et al, 2015;Vargas et al, 2013]. However, there is no clear explanation for this phenomenon.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Previous studies have demonstrated that there is a certain level of conformity in the M-and T-level profiles, both of which tend to increase toward the basal end of the cochlea [Smoorenburg, 2007]. This increase has been observed for cochlear implants produced by different manufacturers (Cochlear Corp., Lane Cove, Australia; Advanced Bionics, Sylmar, Calif., USA; MedEl Corp., Innsbruck, Austria) [Baudhuin et al, 2012;Botros and Psarros, 2010;Cafarelli et al, 2005;D'Elia et al, 2012;Lai et al, 2009;Miller et al, 2008;Polak et al, 2005;Smoorenburg et al, 2002;Thai-Van et al, 2001;van der Beek et al, 2015;Vargas et al, 2013]. Furthermore, both perimodiolar and more lateral electrodes (Nucleus Straight vs. Contour) show higher levels basally [Polak et al, 2004].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intracochlear Position of Cochlear Implants Determined Using CT Scanning versus Fitting Levels: Higher Threshold Levels at Basal Turn

Beek

Briaire²,

Marel³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: In this study, the effects of the intracochlear position of cochlear implants on the clinical fitting levels were analyzed. Design: A total of 130 adult subjects who used a CII/HiRes 90K cochlear implant with a HiFocus 1/1J electrode were included in the study. The insertion angle and the distance to the modiolus of each electrode contact were determined using high-resolution CT scanning. The threshold levels (T-levels) and maximum comfort levels (M-levels) at 1 year of follow-up were determined. The degree of speech perception of the subjects was evaluated during routine clinical follow-up. Results: The depths of insertion of all the electrode contacts were determined. The distance to the modiolus was significantly smaller at the basal and apical cochlear parts compared with that at the middle of the cochlea (p < 0.05). The T-levels increased toward the basal end of the cochlea (3.4 dB). Additionally, the M-levels, which were fitted in our clinic using a standard profile, also increased toward the basal end, although with a lower amplitude (1.3 dB). Accordingly, the dynamic range decreased toward the basal end (2.1 dB). No correlation was found between the distance to the modiolus and the T-level or the M-level. Furthermore, the correlation between the insertion depth and stimulation levels was not affected by the duration of deafness, age at implantation or the time since implantation. Additionally, the T-levels showed a significant correlation with the speech perception scores (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The stimulation levels of the cochlear implants were affected by the intracochlear position of the electrode contacts, which were determined using postoperative CT scanning. Interestingly, these levels depended on the insertion depth, whereas the distance to the modiolus did not affect the stimulation levels. The T-levels increased toward the basal end of the cochlea. The level profiles were independent of the overall stimulation levels and were not affected by the biographical data of the patients, such as the duration of deafness, age at implantation or time since implantation. Further research is required to elucidate how fitting using level profiles with an increase toward the basal end of the cochlea benefits speech perception. Future investigations may elucidate an explanation for the effects of the intracochlear electrode position on the stimulation levels and might facilitate future improvements in electrode design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Intracochlear Position of Cochlear Implants Determined Using CT Scanning versus Fitting Levels: Higher Threshold Levels at Basal Turn

Beek

Briaire²,

Marel³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While Carlson et al (7), reported significantly better word perception scores in CI recipients with preserved residual hearing, Balkany et al (8), D'Elia et al (9), and Cosetti et al (10) could not demonstrate such an effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…This could explain why other studies have reported no significant difference regarding word perception between patients with and without preservation of residual cochlear function. In the studies of Balkany et al (8), D'Elia et al (9), and Cosetti et al (10), the mean postoperative follow-up was 12 months or less. Still, although D'Elia et al found no significant difference in speech perception scores, they did find a correlation between hearing preservation and a larger dynamic range, which has been associated with better word perception in CI users in other studies (21,22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment of residual acoustic hearing close to the maximum output of the audiometer leads to a ceiling effect causing an underestimation of the postoperative hearing loss and an overestimation of hearing preservation rates. To take this effect into account, different hearing preservation classifications have been proposed (7)(8)(9)(10)15). The advantage of the HEARRING group hearing preservation classification system (11) is that the postoperative PTA is related to the preoperative PTA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation May Improve Long-term Word Perception in the Electric-only Condition

Dalbert

Huber

Baumann

et al. 2016

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timing of Acoustic Hearing Changes After Cochlear Implantation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis To determine the timing of acoustic hearing changes among hearing preservation Cochlear implant (CI) recipients. To determine differences in hearing outcomes based on device type and demographic factors. To determine if there is a relationship between the extent of early hearing loss after CI and the subsequent rate of continued hearing loss. Study Design Prospective, single subject study. Methods Two hundred and eleven subjects who received a hearing preservation CI were included in the study—80 Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear), 47 422/522 (Cochlear), 24 S8 (Cochlear), 14 S12 (Cochlear), 6 SRW (Cochlear), 21 SLIM J (Advanced Bionics), and 19 Flex (Med‐EL). Of these, 127 were included in the subsequent analyses. Audiometric thresholds (low frequency pure‐tone‐averages) were collected and compared pre and postoperatively. Results Long‐term hearing preservation rates were 65% (52/80) for L24, 83% (20/24) for S8, 79% (11/14) for S12, 83% (5/6) for SRW, 54% (25/47) for 422/522, 91% (21/23) for SLIM J, and 84% (16/19) for Flex. Hearing loss was not related to device type (P = .9105) or gender (P = .2169). Older subjects (age ≥65) had worse hearing outcomes than younger subjects after initial device activation (age <65, P = .0262). There was no significant difference in rate of hearing loss over time between older and younger patients (P = .0938). Initial postoperative hearing loss was not associated with the rate of long‐term hearing loss. Conclusions Long‐term low frequency hearing preservation is possible for CI recipients and is not associated with gender or device type. Rate of hearing loss over time is not dependent on patient age. Early hearing loss after CI does not predict the rate of long‐term hearing loss. Level of Evidence 3 Laryngoscope, 132:2036–2043, 2022

show abstract

The Role of Hearing Preservation on Electrical Thresholds and Speech Performances in Cochlear Implantation

Cited by 28 publications

References 16 publications

Intracochlear Position of Cochlear Implants Determined Using CT Scanning versus Fitting Levels: Higher Threshold Levels at Basal Turn

Intracochlear Position of Cochlear Implants Determined Using CT Scanning versus Fitting Levels: Higher Threshold Levels at Basal Turn

Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation May Improve Long-term Word Perception in the Electric-only Condition

Timing of Acoustic Hearing Changes After Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About