Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter?

Leila J. Mady, Daniel C. Sukato, Jenifer Fruit, Catherine Palmer, Yael Raz, Barry E. Hirsch, Andrew A. McCall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design: Case series with chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods: Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained ≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results: Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7% received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3% received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P <.05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8%, P <.05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP (P <.05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis (P <.05). Conclusion: The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)837-847
Number of pages11
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)
Volume157
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Hearing
Electrodes
Cochlear Implantation
Age Factors
Cochlea
Tertiary Care Centers
Multivariate Analysis
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • atraumatic electrodes
  • cochlear implantation
  • electroacoustic stimulation
  • full-length electrodes
  • functional hearing
  • hearing aid
  • hearing preservation
  • low-frequency hearing
  • minimally traumatic surgery
  • multivariate analysis
  • residual hearing
  • soft surgery
  • speech recognition scores
  • univariate analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Mady, L. J., Sukato, D. C., Fruit, J., Palmer, C., Raz, Y., Hirsch, B. E., & McCall, A. A. (2017). Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter? Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States), 157(5), 837-847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817707167

Hearing Preservation : Does Electrode Choice Matter? / Mady, Leila J.; Sukato, Daniel C.; Fruit, Jenifer; Palmer, Catherine; Raz, Yael; Hirsch, Barry E.; McCall, Andrew A.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States), Vol. 157, No. 5, 01.11.2017, p. 837-847.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mady, LJ, Sukato, DC, Fruit, J, Palmer, C, Raz, Y, Hirsch, BE & McCall, AA 2017, 'Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter?', Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States), vol. 157, no. 5, pp. 837-847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817707167
Mady, Leila J. ; Sukato, Daniel C. ; Fruit, Jenifer ; Palmer, Catherine ; Raz, Yael ; Hirsch, Barry E. ; McCall, Andrew A. / Hearing Preservation : Does Electrode Choice Matter?. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States). 2017 ; Vol. 157, No. 5. pp. 837-847.
@article{72e6b8a3b0a84073a38a6f9ca981e1b0,
title = "Hearing Preservation: Does Electrode Choice Matter?",
abstract = "Objective: Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design: Case series with chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods: Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained ≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results: Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7{\%} received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3{\%} received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P <.05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8{\%}, P <.05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP (P <.05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis (P <.05). Conclusion: The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.",
keywords = "atraumatic electrodes, cochlear implantation, electroacoustic stimulation, full-length electrodes, functional hearing, hearing aid, hearing preservation, low-frequency hearing, minimally traumatic surgery, multivariate analysis, residual hearing, soft surgery, speech recognition scores, univariate analysis",
author = "Mady, {Leila J.} and Sukato, {Daniel C.} and Jenifer Fruit and Catherine Palmer and Yael Raz and Hirsch, {Barry E.} and McCall, {Andrew A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0194599817707167",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "157",
pages = "837--847",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hearing Preservation

T2 - Does Electrode Choice Matter?

AU - Mady, Leila J.

AU - Sukato, Daniel C.

AU - Fruit, Jenifer

AU - Palmer, Catherine

AU - Raz, Yael

AU - Hirsch, Barry E.

AU - McCall, Andrew A.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Objective: Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design: Case series with chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods: Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained ≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results: Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7% received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3% received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P <.05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8%, P <.05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP (P <.05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis (P <.05). Conclusion: The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.

AB - Objective: Evaluate if electrode design affects hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation (CI) with full-length electrodes. Study Design: Case series with chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral academic center. Subjects and Methods: Forty-five adults with low-frequency hearing (≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) who underwent unilateral CI with full-length electrode arrays made by 1 manufacturer were included. HP was calculated with (1) mean low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) at 250 and 500 Hz (MEAN method), (2) a percentile method across the audiometric frequency spectrum generating an S-value (HEARRING method), and (3) functional if hearing remained ≤85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz. Audiometric testing was performed approximately 1 month and 1 year postoperatively, yielding short-term and long-term results, respectively. Results: Of 45 patients who underwent CI, 46.7% received lateral wall (LW) and 53.3% received perimodiolar (PM) electrodes. At short-term follow-up, LW electrodes were associated with significantly better HP than PM (LFPTA method: 27.7 vs 39.3 dB, P <.05; S-value method: 48.2 vs 21.8%, P <.05). In multivariate regression of short-term outcomes, LW electrode use was a significant predictor of better HP (P <.05). At long-term follow-up, electrode type was not associated with HP. Younger patient age was the only significant predictor of long-term HP on multivariate analysis (P <.05). Conclusion: The LW electrode is associated with short-term HP, suggesting its design is favorable for limiting trauma to the cochlea during and directly following CI. Other factors, including age, are relevant for maintaining HP over the long term. The data support further investigation into what modifiable factors may promote long-term HP.

KW - atraumatic electrodes

KW - cochlear implantation

KW - electroacoustic stimulation

KW - full-length electrodes

KW - functional hearing

KW - hearing aid

KW - hearing preservation

KW - low-frequency hearing

KW - minimally traumatic surgery

KW - multivariate analysis

KW - residual hearing

KW - soft surgery

KW - speech recognition scores

KW - univariate analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032805383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032805383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0194599817707167

DO - 10.1177/0194599817707167

M3 - Article

C2 - 28608735

AN - SCOPUS:85032805383

VL - 157

SP - 837

EP - 847

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 5

ER -