Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation in Conventional Candidates for Cochlear Implantation

Objective:To report on combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation in a subset of conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where preoperative pure tone thresholds were ≤60 dB HL for 250 and 500 Hz. Methods: Subjects were 10 adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance perimodiolar electrode array. Soft surgical procedures were strictly observed: ≤1.5-mm cochleostomy hole placed anterior and inferior to the round window, a Healon bubble placed over the opening to prevent entry of foreign bodies, and no suction applied. The electrode array was inserted 17 mm to the first marker rib using the recommended ‘advance-off-stylet’ technique. Pure tone hearing threshold levels were recorded pre-, and postoperatively at 1–2 and 6–12 months. Speech recognition was tested for cochlear implant (CI) alone and combined with ipsilateral hearing aid for 7 subjects who retained significant residual hearing in the implanted ear at 1–2 months after operation. Results: There were 3/10 cases where 1–2 months after operation low-frequency responses were considered vibrotactile only (>85–110 dB HL, 250–500 Hz). In the remaining 7 cases, residual hearing was maintained up to at least 6 months after operation with minor changes. Insertion depth angles in these cases ranged from 285 to 420°. For these subjects, the mean preoperative score for words presented at 65 dB SPL was 22%. Mean postoperative scores were 56% for CI alone, and 68% for CI plus ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in multitalker babble noise at 5 dB SNR, mean scores were 61% CI alone, and 75% CI+IpsiHA (p < 0.01, paired t). Conclusions: Hearing was conserved during surgery and over time in 70% of conventional candidates implanted with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance CI who had significant levels of preoperative low-frequency residual hearing (≤60 dB HL). These conventional candidates for CI also benefited from improved speech recognition in noise when using combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation.

[1]  D. Proops,et al.  Criteria of Candidacy for Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults I: Theory and Measures of Effectiveness , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Kumiko Yukawa,et al.  Effects of Insertion Depth of Cochlear Implant Electrodes upon Speech Perception , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[3]  G M Clark,et al.  Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. , 2000, The American journal of otology.

[4]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  [New method of partial deafness treatment]. , 2003, Otolaryngologia polska = The Polish otolaryngology.

[7]  C James,et al.  Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[8]  R. Robinson Economic Evaluation and Health Care Cost-effectiveness analysis , 2006 .

[9]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[10]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[12]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant , 2006, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  D. Proops,et al.  Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults - II: cost-effectiveness analysis , 2004 .

[15]  A. Q. Summerfield,et al.  Criteria of Candidacy for Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults II: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[16]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[17]  Toshio Ishibashi,et al.  Factors Associated with Poor Outcome in Children with Acute Otitis Media , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[18]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. , 2003, The Laryngoscope.

[19]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[20]  A. Gunkel,et al.  Microendoscopic transoral CO2-laser resection of an extensive nasopharyngeal and oral teratoma. , 1997, American journal of otolaryngology.

[21]  Richard S Tyler,et al.  Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.