To compare differences in audiologic outcomes between slim modiolar electrode (SME) CI532 and slim lateral wall electrode (SLW) CI522 cochlear implant recipients.
Study Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Tertiary academic hospital.
Methods
Comparison of postoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet (percentage correct) in adult cochlear implant recipients with SME or SLW matched for preoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet and aided and unaided pure tone average.
Results
Patients with SLW (n = 52) and patients with SME (n = 37) had a similar mean (SD) age (62.0 [18.2] vs 62.6 [14.6] years, respectively), mean preoperative aided pure tone average (55.9 [20.4] vs 58.1 [16.4] dB; P = .59), and mean AzBio score (percentage correct, 11.1% [13.3%] vs 8.0% [11.5%]; P = .25). At last follow-up (SLW vs SME, 9.0 [2.9] vs 9.9 [2.6] months), postoperative mean AzBio scores in quiet were not significantly different (percentage correct, 70.8% [21.3%] vs 65.6% [24.5%]; P = .29), and data log usage was similar (12.9 [4.0] vs 11.3 [4.1] hours; P = .07). In patients with preoperative AzBio <10% correct, the 6-month mean AzBio scores were significantly better with SLW than SME (percentage correct, 70.6% [22.9%] vs 53.9% [30.3%]; P = .02). The intraoperative tip rollover rate was 8% for SME and 0% for SLW.
Conclusions
Cochlear implantation with SLW and SME provides comparable improvement in audiologic functioning. SME does not exhibit superior speech recognition outcomes when compared with SLW.
BlanchfieldBBFeldmanJJDunbarJLGardnerEN.The severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States: prevalence estimates and demographics. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(4):183-189.
2.
GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789-1858.
3.
GaylorJMRamanGChungM, et al. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(3):265-272.
4.
HoldenLKFirsztJBReederRMUchanskiRMDwyerNYHoldenTA.Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implant recipients implanted with a perimodiolar electrode array located in scala tympani. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(10):1662-1668.
5.
FuQJNogakiG.Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005;6(1):19-27.
6.
JahnKNDiNinoMArenbergJG.Reducing simulated channel interaction reveals differences in phoneme identification between children and adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear. 2019;40(2):295-311.
WannaGBNobleJHCarlsonML, et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(suppl 6):S1-S7.
9.
O’ConnellBPCakirAHunterJB, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1016-1023.
10.
O’ConnellBPHunterJBGiffordRH, et al. Electrode location and audiologic performance after cochlear implantation: a comparative study between nucleus CI422 and CI512 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1032-1035.
11.
HolderJTYawnRJNassiriAM, et al. Matched cohort comparison indicates superiority of precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(9):1160-1166.
12.
KimJRTejaniVDAbbasPJBrownCJ.Intracochlear recordings of acoustically and electrically evoked potentials in nucleus hybrid L24 cochlear implant users and their relationship to speech perception. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:216.
13.
FabieJEKellerRGHatchJL, et al. Evaluation of outcome variability associated with lateral wall, mid-scalar, and perimodiolar electrode arrays when controlling for preoperative patient characteristics. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(9):1122-1128.
14.
MadyLJSukatoDCFruitJ, et al. Hearing preservation: does electrode choice matter?Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157(5):837-847.
15.
WoodsonESmealMNelsonRCHaberkampTSydlowskiS.Slim perimodiolar arrays are as effective as slim lateral wall arrays for functional hearing preservation after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(6):e674-e679.
16.
ShepherdRKHatsushikaSClarkGM.Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res. 1993;66(1):108-120.
17.
GoldwynJHBiererSMBiererJA.Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration. Hear Res. 2010;268(1-2):93-104.
18.
TelmesaniLMSaidNM.Effect of cochlear implant electrode array design on auditory nerve and behavioral response in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(5):660-665.
19.
HughesMLAbbasPJ.Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1538-1547.
20.
ParkLRTeagleHFBBrownKDGagnonEBWoodardJSBuchmanCA.Audiological outcomes and map characteristics in children with perimodiolar and slim straight array cochlear implants in opposite ears. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(9):e320-e326.
21.
WannaGBNobleJHGiffordRH, et al. Impact of intrascalar electrode location, electrode type, and angular insertion depth on residual hearing in cochlear implant patients: preliminary results. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(8):1343-1348.
22.
O’ConnellBPHunterJBWannaGB.The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2016;1(6):169-174.
23.
DurakovicNKallogjeriDWickCCMcJunkinJLBuchmanCAHerzogJ.Immediate and 1-year outcomes with a slim modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(5):731-736.
24.
AschendorffABriggsRBrademannG, et al. Clinical investigation of the nucleus slim modiolar electrode. Audiol Neurootol. 2017;22(3):169-179.
25.
DietzAIso-MustajarviMSipariSTervaniemiJGazibegovicD.Evaluation of a new slim lateral wall electrode for cochlear implantation: an imaging study in human temporal bones. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(7):1723-1729.
26.
Iso-MustajarviMMatikkaHRisiF, et al. A new slim modiolar electrode array for cochlear implantation: a radiological and histological study. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(9):e327-e334.
27.
ShaulCWederSTariSGerardJMO’LearySJBriggsRJ.Slim, modiolar cochlear implant electrode: Melbourne experience and comparison with the contour perimodiolar electrode. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(5):639-643.
28.
McJunkinJLDurakovicNHerzogJBuchmanCA.Early outcomes with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(1):e28-e33.
29.
WoodsonESmealMNelsonRCHaberkampTSydlowskiS.Slim perimodiolar arrays are as effective as slim lateral wall arrays for functional hearing preservation after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(6):e674-e679.
30.
GilbertJLTamatiTNPisoniDB.Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013;24(1):26-36.
31.
TamatiTNGilbertJLPisoniDB.Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013;24(7):616-634.
