Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul;41(6):750-757.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002627.

Long-term Hearing Preservation in Electric Acoustic Cochlear Implant Candidates

Georg Mathias Sprinzl  1   2 , Philipp Schoerg  1 , Stefan Herwig Edlinger  1   2 , Astrid Magele  1   2
Affiliations

Long-term Hearing Preservation in Electric Acoustic Cochlear Implant Candidates

Georg Mathias Sprinzl et al. Otol Neurotol. 2020 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate long-term stability and residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Study design: Retrospective chart-analysis.

Setting: University clinic.

Methods: Long- and short-term hearing preservation (HP) of 18 EAS subjects (21 ears) was evaluated. Short-term was defined as follow-ups less than 12 months after surgery versus long-term outcomes longer than 12 months postsurgery.

Results: Mean period of observation in the short-term group was 4 ± 3.0 months (range 0-7). In the long-term group the mean follow-up was 28.4 ± 15.0 months (range 12-58). Full insertion was possible in all 18 implanted subjects. In the short-term group, complete HP was achieved in 50%, partial HP in 33.3%, and minimal HP in 8.3% of the investigated subjects. One subject lost hearing completely. In the long-term group, complete HP was achieved in 50%, partial HP was observed in 40%, and minimal HP in 10% of the ears. No subject lost hearing completely. Subjects using EAS showed better word recognition scores after surgery (mean at 65 dB 55.3 ± 18.4; mean at 80 dB 68.1 ± 12.2) than subjects using electric stimulation only (mean at 65 dB 38.3 ± 18.1; mean at 80 dB 60.0 ± 16.4) with nonfunctional low-frequency hearing.

Conclusion: The study confirms that hearing can be preserved to a large extent. As a result, most subjects benefitted from EAS. Subjects with postoperative functional low-frequency hearing showed greater benefit in word speech tests. Furthermore, the outcomes show that EAS implantation is a safe, effective, and most importantly stable treatment option (longest follow-up with 58 mo).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. O’Connell BP, Hunter JB, Haynes DS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope 2017; 127:2352–2357.
    1. Gantz BJ, Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:1726–1730.
    1. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114:446–454.
    1. von Ilberg CA, Baumann U, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Adunka OF. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: A review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol 2011; 16: (suppl 2): 1–30.
    1. Skarzynski H, van de Heyning P, Agrawal S, et al. Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classification system. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2013; 564:3–13.