Acceptance and Benefit of Electroacoustic Stimulation in Children.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
11
5
2023
entrez:
11
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Children with high-frequency severe-to-profound hearing loss and low-frequency residual hearing who do not derive significant benefit from hearing aids are now being considered for cochlear implantation. Previous research shows that hearing preservation is possible and may be desirable for the use of electroacoustic stimulation (EAS) in adults, but this topic remains underexplored in children. The goal of this study was to explore factors relating to hearing preservation, acceptance, and benefits of EAS for children. Retrospective review. Tertiary academic medical center. Forty children (48 ears) with preoperative low-frequency pure-tone averages of 75 dB HL or less at 250 and 500 Hz (n = 48). All patients underwent cochlear implantation with a standard-length electrode. Low-frequency audiometric thresholds, speech perception, and EAS usage were measured at initial stimulation, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between children with and without hearing preservation, and between EAS users and nonusers. Hearing was preserved at similar rates as adults but worse for children with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Fewer than half of children who qualified to use EAS chose to do so, citing a variety of audiologic and nonaudiologic reasons. No differences were detected in speech perception scores across the groups for words, sentences, or sentences in noise tests. Neither hearing preservation nor EAS use resulted in superior speech perception in children with preoperative residual hearing; rather, all children performed well after implantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37167445
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003877
pii: 00129492-202306000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
453-461Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Références
Turner C. Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008;45:769–78.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H, et al. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 2013;34:413–25.
Gfeller KE, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(Suppl 1):12–5.
El Fata F, James CJ, Laborde ML, Fraysse B. How much residual hearing is “useful” for music perception with cochlear implants? Audiol Neurootol 2009;14(Suppl 1):14–21.
Brockmeier SJ, Peterreins M, Lorens A, et al. Music perception in electric acoustic stimulation users as assessed by the Mu.S.I.C. test. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2010;67:70–80.
Fraysse B, Macías ÁR, Sterkers O, et al. Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:624–33.
Gstoettner W, Helbig S, Settevendemie C, et al. A new electrode for residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: First clinical results. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:372–9.
Battmer RD, Scholz S, Geissler G, Ernst A. Electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) with the Naída CI Q90 sound processor in experienced cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int 2019;20:331–40.
Spitzer ER, Waltzman SB, Landsberger DM, Friedmann DR. Acceptance and benefits of electro-acoustic stimulation for conventional-length electrode arrays. Audiol Neurootol 2021;26:17–26.
Rajan G, Tavora-Vieira D, Baumgartner WD, et al. Hearing preservation cochlear implantation in children: The HEARRING Group consensus and practice guide. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:1–13.
Haber K, Neagu A, Konopka W, et al. The influence of Slim Modiolar electrode on residual hearing in pediatric patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:2723–32.
Nam GS, Song MH, Choi JY, Jung J. Outcomes and predictive factors of electroacoustic stimulation rehabilitation in children with limited low-frequency hearing. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:e894–900.
Carlson ML, Patel NS, Tombers NM, et al. Hearing preservation in pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:e128–33.
Anagiotos A, Hamdan N, Lang-Roth R, et al. Young age is a positive prognostic factor for residual hearing preservation in conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:28–33.
Manjaly JG, Nash R, Ellis W, et al. Hearing preservation with standard length electrodes in pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:1109–14.
Roland JT, Gantz BJ, Waltzman SB, Parkinson AJ. United States multicenter clinical trial of the cochlear nucleus hybrid implant system. Laryngoscope 2016;126:175–81.
Selleck AM, Park LR, Choudhury B, et al. Hearing preservation in pediatric recipients of cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:e277–82.
Driscoll VD, Welhaven AE, Gfeller K, Oleson J, Olszewski CP. Music perception of adolescents using electroacoustic hearing. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:e141–7.
Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Walker E, et al. Outcomes of adolescents with a short electrode cochlear implant with preserved residual hearing. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:e118–25.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A. Electric acoustic stimulation in children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2009;67:135–43.
Friedmann DR, Peng R, Fang Y, et al. Effects of loss of residual hearing on speech performance with the CI422 and the Hybrid-L electrode. Cochlear Implants Int 2015;16:277–84.
Park LR, Teagle HFB, Gagnon E, Woodard J, Brown KD. Electric-acoustic stimulation outcomes in children. Ear Hear 2019;40:849–57.
Wolfe J, Neumann S, Schafer E, et al. Potential benefits of an integrated electric-acoustic sound processor with children: A preliminary report. J Am Acad Audiol 2017;28:127–40.
Scholz S, Todt I, Olze H, Wagner F, Battmer RD. Benefit of a hybrid speech processor in implanted young children with residual hearing. JSM Health Educ Prim Health Care 2017;2:1028–32.
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.
Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995;16:470–81.
Haskins HL. A Phonetically Balanced Test of Speech Discrimination for Children . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University; 1949.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62–70.
Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Osberger MJ. Common Phrases Test . Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University School of Medicine; 1995.
Nilsson M, Soli S, Gelnett D. Development of the Sharing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) . Los Angeles, CA: House Ear Institute; 1996.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, et al. Development and validation of the Pediatric AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2014;35:418–22.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:1085–99.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012;33:112–7.
Studebaker GA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985;28:455–62.
Rom DM. A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni inequality. Biometrika 1990;77:663–5.
Teagle HFB, Park LR, Brown KD, Zdanski C, Pillsbury HC. Pediatric cochlear implantation: A quarter century in review. Cochlear Implants Int 2019;20:288–98.
Brown RF, Hullar TE, Cadieux JH, Chole RA. Residual hearing preservation after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1221–6.
Roh KJ, Park S, Jung JS, et al. Hearing preservation during cochlear implantation and electroacoustic stimulation in patients with SLC26A4 mutations. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:1262–7.
Causon A, Verschuur C, Newman TA. A retrospective analysis of the contribution of reported factors in cochlear implantation on hearing preservation outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1137–45.
Jia H, Wang J, François F, et al. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of loss of residual hearing after cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2013;122:33–9.
Chiossi JSC, Hyppolito MA. Effects of residual hearing on cochlear implant outcomes in children: A systematic-review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;100:119–27.
El-Hakim H, Abdolell M, Papsin BC, Mount RJ, Harrison RV. Influence of age at implantation and of residual hearing on speech outcome measures after cochlear implantation: Binary partitioning analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111(5_suppl):102–8.
Gratacap M, Thierry B, Rouillon I, et al. Pediatric cochlear implantation in residual hearing candidates. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2015;124:443–51.
Helbig S, Baumann U, Hey C, Helbig M. Hearing preservation after complete cochlear coverage in cochlear implantation with the free-fitting FLEXSOFT electrode carrier. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:973–9.
Helbig S, Helbig M, Leinung M, et al. Hearing preservation and improved speech perception with a flexible 28-mm electrode. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:34–42.
Cosetti MK, Friedmann DR, Zhu BZ, et al. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:516–21.
O'Connell BP, Hunter JB, Haynes DS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2352–7.