Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Slim Straight and Slim Modiolar Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays.
MacPhail, Margaret E; Connell, Nathan T; Totten, Douglas J; Gray, Mitchell T; Pisoni, David; Yates, Charles W; Nelson, Rick F.
Afiliação
  • MacPhail ME; School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Connell NT; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Totten DJ; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Gray MT; School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Pisoni D; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Yates CW; School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
  • Nelson RF; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 166(5): 943-950, 2022 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34399646
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To compare differences in audiologic outcomes between slim modiolar electrode (SME) CI532 and slim lateral wall electrode (SLW) CI522 cochlear implant recipients. STUDY

DESIGN:

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING:

Tertiary academic hospital.

METHODS:

Comparison of postoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet (percentage correct) in adult cochlear implant recipients with SME or SLW matched for preoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet and aided and unaided pure tone average.

RESULTS:

Patients with SLW (n = 52) and patients with SME (n = 37) had a similar mean (SD) age (62.0 [18.2] vs 62.6 [14.6] years, respectively), mean preoperative aided pure tone average (55.9 [20.4] vs 58.1 [16.4] dB; P = .59), and mean AzBio score (percentage correct, 11.1% [13.3%] vs 8.0% [11.5%]; P = .25). At last follow-up (SLW vs SME, 9.0 [2.9] vs 9.9 [2.6] months), postoperative mean AzBio scores in quiet were not significantly different (percentage correct, 70.8% [21.3%] vs 65.6% [24.5%]; P = .29), and data log usage was similar (12.9 [4.0] vs 11.3 [4.1] hours; P = .07). In patients with preoperative AzBio <10% correct, the 6-month mean AzBio scores were significantly better with SLW than SME (percentage correct, 70.6% [22.9%] vs 53.9% [30.3%]; P = .02). The intraoperative tip rollover rate was 8% for SME and 0% for SLW.

CONCLUSIONS:

Cochlear implantation with SLW and SME provides comparable improvement in audiologic functioning. SME does not exhibit superior speech recognition outcomes when compared with SLW.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Percepção da Fala / Implantes Cocleares / Implante Coclear Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Percepção da Fala / Implantes Cocleares / Implante Coclear Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article