Speech Perception Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Using a Lateral Wall or Perimodiolar Array

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMoran, Michelle
dc.contributor.authorVandali, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorBriggs, Robert
dc.contributor.authorDettman, Shani
dc.contributor.authorCowan, Robert
dc.contributor.authorDowell, Richard
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-19T23:57:26Z
dc.date.available2020-04-19T23:57:26Z
dc.date.issued2019-04
dc.description.abstractAIM: To assess the speech perception outcomes of adult CI recipients with significant preimplant low frequency hearing, examining differences between perimodiolar and lateral wall electrode placement in order to provide clinical guidance for clinicians and surgeons. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was undertaken identifying all adults who received a thin straight electrode array (TSEA) at the Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital (RVEEH) from 2010 to 2015 and who had a preimplant low frequency pure tone median </=70 dB HL (n = 63). A retrospective review was completed of the RVEEH database to identify a comparison group who had been implanted with a perimodiolar electrode array, comprising adults implanted between 2004 and 2011 (PM Group) with preimplant hearing equivalent to the TSEA group (n = 70). The TSEA Group were further divided into subgroups in which n = 19 used EAS (TSEA-EAS) and n = 44 who used electric-only hearing (TSEA-Standard). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in median speech perception outcomes between the TSEA and PM Groups (TSEA 61.7%, PM 67.3%, p = 0.954). A significant difference was found between the TSEA-EAS and TSEA-Standard subgroups for median speech perception outcome (TSEA-EAS median 73.5%, TSEA-Standard median 58.3%, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Significant speech perception benefit following cochlear implantation was achieved with both the perimodiolar and lateral wall electrode arrays and no significant difference was found between outcomes with those array types in this population of adults with functional low frequency hearing pre-implant. Those that received a TSEA, had preserved hearing, and utilised an EAS sound processor performed better than their peers with a TSEA and electric-only hearing.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors acknowledge the financial support of the HEARing CRC, established under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program. The CRC Program supports industry-led collaborations between industry, researchers and the community.en_US
dc.identifier.citationMoran, M., A. Vandali, R. J. S. Briggs, S. Dettman, R. S. C. Cowan, and R. C. Dowell. 2019. Speech Perception Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Using a Lateral Wall or Perimodiolar Array. Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. 40(5): 608-616.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1531-7129
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.bionicsinstitute.org:8080/handle/123456789/393
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer Health, Incen_US
dc.subjectAdultsen_US
dc.subjectCohlear implantsen_US
dc.subjectElectrode arrayen_US
dc.subjectOutcomesen_US
dc.subjectSpeech perceptionen_US
dc.titleSpeech Perception Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Using a Lateral Wall or Perimodiolar Arrayen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2019_Moran_Speech.pdf
Size:
56.9 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
BI publications