Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes
Objectives/Hypothesis The aims of this study were to investigate short‐ and long‐term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation. Study Design Retrospective review. Methods Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventiona...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Laryngoscope 2018-02, Vol.128 (2), p.482-489 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 489 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 482 |
| container_title | The Laryngoscope |
| container_volume | 128 |
| creator | Wanna, George B. O'Connell, Brendan P. Francis, David O. Gifford, Rene H. Hunter, Jacob B. Holder, Jourdan T. Bennett, Marc L. Rivas, Alejandro Labadie, Robert F. Haynes, David S. |
| description | Objectives/Hypothesis
The aims of this study were to investigate short‐ and long‐term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation.
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Methods
Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes and air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz.
Results
The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short‐term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91‐0.95, P < .001) and long‐term follow‐up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91‐0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid‐scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4‐8.6, P = .009) and 5.6‐times (95% CI: 1.8‐17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short‐term follow‐up, respectively. Long‐term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6‐36.1, P = .01), but not mid‐scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4‐23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long‐term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.
Conclusions
Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long‐term functional hearing preservation.
Level of Evidence
4. Laryngoscope, 128:482–489, 2018 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/lary.26714 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5741536</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1988035869</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4484-aa3b503156db010fe78b85c176bc485bcd4f16206784b1663ba8b4eca99e23063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2KFDEUhYMoTs_oxgeQgBsZqDGp_FRqIwyDf9CgiIKuQip1qytDOmmT6h5mJ_gCPqNPYsoaB3XhKj_n43DvOQg9ouSMElI_8yZdn9WyofwOWlHBaMXbVtxFqyKySon60xE6zvmSENowQe6jo1pJzljdrNC3dwl6Zyd3ADwYO8WU8RATzmNM04-v37EJPfYxbMp9grTFI5jkwgbvEmRIBzO5GLAL2EY7-qJht915E6ZFuHLTWKRwgDC_jS82HsKm_IIHO6XYQ36A7g3GZ3h4c56gjy9ffLh4Xa3fvnpzcb6uLOeKV8awThBGhew7QskAjeqUsLSRneVKdLbnA5U1kY3iHZWSdUZ1HKxpW6gZkewEPV98d_tuC70tMyXj9S65bUlQR-P030pwo97EgxYNL7HOBk9vDFL8soc86a3LFnzZF-I-a9pSxkr0lBb0yT_oZdynEsBMKUWYULIt1OlC2RRzTjDcDkOJnrvVc7f6V7cFfvzn-Lfo7zILQBfgynm4_o-VXp-__7yY_gRmdLX-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1988035869</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Wanna, George B. ; O'Connell, Brendan P. ; Francis, David O. ; Gifford, Rene H. ; Hunter, Jacob B. ; Holder, Jourdan T. ; Bennett, Marc L. ; Rivas, Alejandro ; Labadie, Robert F. ; Haynes, David S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wanna, George B. ; O'Connell, Brendan P. ; Francis, David O. ; Gifford, Rene H. ; Hunter, Jacob B. ; Holder, Jourdan T. ; Bennett, Marc L. ; Rivas, Alejandro ; Labadie, Robert F. ; Haynes, David S.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives/Hypothesis
The aims of this study were to investigate short‐ and long‐term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation.
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Methods
Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes and air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz.
Results
The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short‐term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91‐0.95, P < .001) and long‐term follow‐up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91‐0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid‐scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4‐8.6, P = .009) and 5.6‐times (95% CI: 1.8‐17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short‐term follow‐up, respectively. Long‐term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6‐36.1, P = .01), but not mid‐scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4‐23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long‐term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.
Conclusions
Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long‐term functional hearing preservation.
Level of Evidence
4. Laryngoscope, 128:482–489, 2018</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.26714</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28643327</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Audiometry, Pure-Tone ; Auditory Threshold ; Cochlear implant ; Cochlear Implantation - instrumentation ; Cochlear Implantation - methods ; Cochlear implants ; Deafness - physiopathology ; Deafness - surgery ; electrode design ; Electrodes ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Female ; Hearing - physiology ; hearing preservation ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Odds Ratio ; Postoperative Period ; Retrospective Studies ; Round Window, Ear - surgery ; surgical approach ; Time ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2018-02, Vol.128 (2), p.482-489</ispartof><rights>2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4484-aa3b503156db010fe78b85c176bc485bcd4f16206784b1663ba8b4eca99e23063</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4484-aa3b503156db010fe78b85c176bc485bcd4f16206784b1663ba8b4eca99e23063</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5603-8804</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flary.26714$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flary.26714$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643327$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wanna, George B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Brendan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, David O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gifford, Rene H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, Jacob B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holder, Jourdan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Marc L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivas, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labadie, Robert F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haynes, David S.</creatorcontrib><title>Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Objectives/Hypothesis
The aims of this study were to investigate short‐ and long‐term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation.
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Methods
Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes and air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz.
Results
The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short‐term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91‐0.95, P < .001) and long‐term follow‐up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91‐0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid‐scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4‐8.6, P = .009) and 5.6‐times (95% CI: 1.8‐17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short‐term follow‐up, respectively. Long‐term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6‐36.1, P = .01), but not mid‐scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4‐23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long‐term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.
Conclusions
Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long‐term functional hearing preservation.
Level of Evidence
4. Laryngoscope, 128:482–489, 2018</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Audiometry, Pure-Tone</subject><subject>Auditory Threshold</subject><subject>Cochlear implant</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Cochlear implants</subject><subject>Deafness - physiopathology</subject><subject>Deafness - surgery</subject><subject>electrode design</subject><subject>Electrodes</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hearing - physiology</subject><subject>hearing preservation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Postoperative Period</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Round Window, Ear - surgery</subject><subject>surgical approach</subject><subject>Time</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2KFDEUhYMoTs_oxgeQgBsZqDGp_FRqIwyDf9CgiIKuQip1qytDOmmT6h5mJ_gCPqNPYsoaB3XhKj_n43DvOQg9ouSMElI_8yZdn9WyofwOWlHBaMXbVtxFqyKySon60xE6zvmSENowQe6jo1pJzljdrNC3dwl6Zyd3ADwYO8WU8RATzmNM04-v37EJPfYxbMp9grTFI5jkwgbvEmRIBzO5GLAL2EY7-qJht915E6ZFuHLTWKRwgDC_jS82HsKm_IIHO6XYQ36A7g3GZ3h4c56gjy9ffLh4Xa3fvnpzcb6uLOeKV8awThBGhew7QskAjeqUsLSRneVKdLbnA5U1kY3iHZWSdUZ1HKxpW6gZkewEPV98d_tuC70tMyXj9S65bUlQR-P030pwo97EgxYNL7HOBk9vDFL8soc86a3LFnzZF-I-a9pSxkr0lBb0yT_oZdynEsBMKUWYULIt1OlC2RRzTjDcDkOJnrvVc7f6V7cFfvzn-Lfo7zILQBfgynm4_o-VXp-__7yY_gRmdLX-</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Wanna, George B.</creator><creator>O'Connell, Brendan P.</creator><creator>Francis, David O.</creator><creator>Gifford, Rene H.</creator><creator>Hunter, Jacob B.</creator><creator>Holder, Jourdan T.</creator><creator>Bennett, Marc L.</creator><creator>Rivas, Alejandro</creator><creator>Labadie, Robert F.</creator><creator>Haynes, David S.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-8804</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes</title><author>Wanna, George B. ; O'Connell, Brendan P. ; Francis, David O. ; Gifford, Rene H. ; Hunter, Jacob B. ; Holder, Jourdan T. ; Bennett, Marc L. ; Rivas, Alejandro ; Labadie, Robert F. ; Haynes, David S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4484-aa3b503156db010fe78b85c176bc485bcd4f16206784b1663ba8b4eca99e23063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Audiometry, Pure-Tone</topic><topic>Auditory Threshold</topic><topic>Cochlear implant</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Cochlear implants</topic><topic>Deafness - physiopathology</topic><topic>Deafness - surgery</topic><topic>electrode design</topic><topic>Electrodes</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hearing - physiology</topic><topic>hearing preservation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Postoperative Period</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Round Window, Ear - surgery</topic><topic>surgical approach</topic><topic>Time</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wanna, George B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Brendan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, David O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gifford, Rene H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, Jacob B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holder, Jourdan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Marc L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivas, Alejandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labadie, Robert F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haynes, David S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wanna, George B.</au><au>O'Connell, Brendan P.</au><au>Francis, David O.</au><au>Gifford, Rene H.</au><au>Hunter, Jacob B.</au><au>Holder, Jourdan T.</au><au>Bennett, Marc L.</au><au>Rivas, Alejandro</au><au>Labadie, Robert F.</au><au>Haynes, David S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>128</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>482</spage><epage>489</epage><pages>482-489</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><abstract>Objectives/Hypothesis
The aims of this study were to investigate short‐ and long‐term rates of hearing preservation after cochlear implantation and identify factors that impact hearing preservation.
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Methods
Patients undergoing cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes and air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively were included. Hearing preservation was defined as air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz.
Results
The sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate of short‐term hearing preservation was 38% (84/225), with 18% (33/188) of patients preserving hearing long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative hearing was predictive of hearing preservation at short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91‐0.95, P < .001) and long‐term follow‐up (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91‐0.97, P < .001). Lateral wall electrodes and mid‐scala electrodes had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4‐8.6, P = .009) and 5.6‐times (95% CI: 1.8‐17.3, P = .003) higher odds of hearing preservation than perimodiolar arrays at short‐term follow‐up, respectively. Long‐term data revealed better hearing preservation for lateral wall (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.6‐36.1, P = .01), but not mid‐scala (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.4‐23.1, P = .28), when compared to perimodiolar electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches were associated with higher rates of long‐term hearing preservation (21%) than cochleostomy approaches (0%) (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.
Conclusions
Better preoperative residual hearing, lateral wall electrodes, and RW/ERW approaches are predictive of higher rates of long‐term functional hearing preservation.
Level of Evidence
4. Laryngoscope, 128:482–489, 2018</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28643327</pmid><doi>10.1002/lary.26714</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-8804</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-852X |
| ispartof | The Laryngoscope, 2018-02, Vol.128 (2), p.482-489 |
| issn | 0023-852X 1531-4995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5741536 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Audiometry, Pure-Tone Auditory Threshold Cochlear implant Cochlear Implantation - instrumentation Cochlear Implantation - methods Cochlear implants Deafness - physiopathology Deafness - surgery electrode design Electrodes Electrodes, Implanted Female Hearing - physiology hearing preservation Humans Male Middle Aged Multivariate Analysis Odds Ratio Postoperative Period Retrospective Studies Round Window, Ear - surgery surgical approach Time Treatment Outcome Young Adult |
| title | Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T03%3A20%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predictive%20factors%20for%20short%E2%80%90%20and%20long%E2%80%90term%20hearing%20preservation%20in%20cochlear%20implantation%20with%20conventional%E2%80%90length%20electrodes&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Wanna,%20George%20B.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=482&rft.epage=489&rft.pages=482-489&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.26714&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1988035869%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1988035869&rft_id=info:pmid/28643327&rfr_iscdi=true |