Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant

Objective: To assess the conservation of residual hearing in recipients of the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant (CI) and the benefits of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation. Study Design: Prospective multicenter study. Setting: CI clinics in Western Europe. Patients: Adult candidates for conventional cochlear implantation with a minimum preoperative word recognition score of 10% in the ear to be implanted. Intervention: "Soft-surgery" protocol, including a 1- to 1.2-mm anterior and inferior cochleostomy hole with the electrode array, inserted 17 mm using the "advance-off-stylet" technique. Patients with postoperative pure-tone hearing threshold levels (HTLs) of 80 dB hearing loss or less at 125 and 250 Hz and 90 dB hearing loss or less at 500 Hz were refitted with an in-the-ear hearing aid for combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic (El-Ac) stimulation. Main Outcome Measures: A questionnaire to collect information regarding surgery. Pure-tone HTLs measured at intervals. Word recognition tested in quiet and sentence recognition tested in noise at 10 and 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Hearing Conservation Results: HTL data were available for 27 patients. HTLs were conserved within 20 dB of preoperative levels for 33, 26, and 19% of patients for 125, 250, and 500 Hz, respectively. However, the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly followed in only 12 of 27 patients. For these 12 patients, hearing thresholds were conserved within 20 dB for 50, 50, and 33% of patients. Median threshold increases were 40 dB (range, 250-500 Hz) for the whole group and 23 dB for the strict surgery group. Ten patients retained sufficient HTLs to enter the El-Ac user group. Speech Recognition Results: Group mean recognition scores for nine El-Ac users for words presented at 65 dB sound pressure level were 45% for CI alone and 55% for CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in noise at 5 dB SNR, mean word scores were 46% CI alone and 56% CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.01, paired t). Conclusion: Hearing was conserved for conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly adhered. Combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation provided considerable benefits for speech recognition in noise, equivalent to between 3 and 5 dB SNR, compared with CI alone.

[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]  Kazimierz Niemczyk,et al.  The topographical anatomy of the round window and related structures for the purpose of cochlear implant surgery. , 2004, Folia morphologica.

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

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

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

[6]  Arthur Boothroyd,et al.  A sentence test of speech perception: reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning , 1985 .

[7]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[9]  N Dillier,et al.  Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[10]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[11]  C. Turner,et al.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Development and Evaluation of an Improved Cochlear Implant Electrode Design for Electric Acoustic Stimulation , 2004, The Laryngoscope.

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  Do tests for cochlear dead regions provide important information for fitting hearing aids? , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

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

[21]  R C Seewald,et al.  The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[23]  T. Ching,et al.  Should Children Who Use Cochlear Implants Wear Hearing Aids in the Opposite Ear? , 2001, Ear and hearing.

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