The Laryngoscope · 2021
Timing of Acoustic Hearing Changes After Cochlear Implantation.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jensen Megan J, Isaac Heba, Hernandez Helin, Oleson Jacob, Dunn Camille, Gantz Bruce J, Hansen Marlan R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the timing of acoustic hearing changes among hearing preservation Cochlear implant (CI) recipients. To determine differences in hearing outcomes based on device type and demographic factors. To determine if there is a relationship between the extent of early hearing loss after CI and the subsequent rate of continued hearing loss.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single subject study.
METHODS: Two hundred and eleven subjects who received a hearing preservation CI were included in the study-80 Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear), 47 422/522 (Cochlear), 24 S8 (Cochlear), 14 S12 (Cochlear), 6 SRW (Cochlear), 21 SLIM J (Advanced Bionics), and 19 Flex (Med-EL). Of these, 127 were included in the subsequent analyses. Audiometric thresholds (low frequency pure-tone-averages) were collected and compared pre and postoperatively.
RESULTS: Long-term hearing preservation rates were 65% (52/80) for L24, 83% (20/24) for S8, 79% (11/14) for S12, 83% (5/6) for SRW, 54% (25/47) for 422/522, 91% (21/23) for SLIM J, and 84% (16/19) for Flex. Hearing loss was not related to device type (P = .9105) or gender (P = .2169). Older subjects (age ≥65) had worse hearing outcomes than younger subjects after initial device activation (age <65, P = .0262). There was no significant difference in rate of hearing loss over time between older and younger patients (P = .0938). Initial postoperative hearing loss was not associated with the rate of long-term hearing loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term low frequency hearing preservation is possible for CI recipients and is not associated with gender or device type. Rate of hearing loss over time is not dependent on patient age. Early hearing loss after CI does not predict the rate of long-term hearing loss.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:2036-2043, 2022.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single subject study.
METHODS: Two hundred and eleven subjects who received a hearing preservation CI were included in the study-80 Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear), 47 422/522 (Cochlear), 24 S8 (Cochlear), 14 S12 (Cochlear), 6 SRW (Cochlear), 21 SLIM J (Advanced Bionics), and 19 Flex (Med-EL). Of these, 127 were included in the subsequent analyses. Audiometric thresholds (low frequency pure-tone-averages) were collected and compared pre and postoperatively.
RESULTS: Long-term hearing preservation rates were 65% (52/80) for L24, 83% (20/24) for S8, 79% (11/14) for S12, 83% (5/6) for SRW, 54% (25/47) for 422/522, 91% (21/23) for SLIM J, and 84% (16/19) for Flex. Hearing loss was not related to device type (P = .9105) or gender (P = .2169). Older subjects (age ≥65) had worse hearing outcomes than younger subjects after initial device activation (age <65, P = .0262). There was no significant difference in rate of hearing loss over time between older and younger patients (P = .0938). Initial postoperative hearing loss was not associated with the rate of long-term hearing loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term low frequency hearing preservation is possible for CI recipients and is not associated with gender or device type. Rate of hearing loss over time is not dependent on patient age. Early hearing loss after CI does not predict the rate of long-term hearing loss.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:2036-2043, 2022.