RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of benefit the second processor provides and to better understand utilization patterns regarding cochlear implant (CI) sound processors. BACKGROUND: Institutional contracts determine the external CI sound processor hardware that a patient is eligible for. Despite the high prevalence of CI worldwide, there is a paucity in the literature regarding patient preferences and how patients utilize provided external hardware. METHODS: A close-ended, multiple-choice survey was mailed to all patients over the age of 18 years who underwent CI between 2016 to 2020 at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients who received their CI hardware prior to 2018 were provided 2 processors, whereas those who received their hardware in 2018 or later were provided 1 processor. RESULTS: A total of 100/263 surveys were returned for a response rate of 38.0%. Of the cohort with 1 processor, 31.3% experienced a period without a functioning processor and access to sound compared to 5.6% of the cohort with 2 processors (P = -.003). Of the cohort with 2 processors, 24.3% noted that they often or always utilize their second processor. When asked how important having a second processor was, 62.9% of the 2-processor group responded that it was very important (P = .001). The most common reason for utilizing the second processor was a damaged primary processor. Patients who received 2 processors had a significantly lower number of postoperative audiology clinic visits for device troubleshooting (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients who have 2 CI external processors identify this as being very important to them and experience significantly less time without access to sound due to lack of a functioning processor. As institutional contracts often dictate whether a patient will receive 1 or 2 sound processors with their CI hardware, it is important to understand patient preferences and utilization patterns in order to guide patient-centric policies.