Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term residual hearing in cochlear implanted adult patients who were candidates for electro-acoustic stimulation

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the long-term hearing outcomes in cochlear implanted adults with residual hearing at low frequencies, and the proportion of patients using electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Methods

A monocentric retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center. Population demographics, surgical approach, pre- and postoperative hearing at low frequencies, in the implanted and contralateral ear, were recorded as well as duration of EAS use. The percentage hearing preservation was calculated according to the formula S (HEARRING group).

Results

In total, 63 adults (81 ears) with residual hearing underwent cochlear implantation with intent to use EAS processors. Six different types of electrode array were implanted. The mean pure tone audiometry (PTA) shift after cochlear implantation was 16 ± 15 dB HL (range 0–59 dB HL). Half of the implanted ears had minimal hearing preservation or total hearing loss (HL) at 5.5 years and the cumulative risk of total HL was 50% at 7 years. During the follow-up, total HL occurred in 22 ears. The decrease in hearing levels was similar in both implanted and contralateral ear during follow-up (ns, F = 2.46 ± 3, Linear Mixed Model (LMM)). Only 44 patients found a benefit from EAS at the first fitting. At the last visit, EAS processors were fitted in 30% of the cases. The pre- and postoperative mean PTA thresholds were not predictive of EAS use (Cox’s proportional hazards analysis).

Conclusions

Postoperative residual hearing was observed in 93% of implanted ears, but only half of them had an initial benefit from EAS. No predictive factors were found to influence the use of EAS processors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J et al (1999) Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. ORL 61:334–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lehnhardt E (1993) Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique. HNO 41:356–359

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Oleson J et al (2017) Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochelar implant : final outcomes. Laryngoscope 126:962–973. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25572.Multicenter

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen Y, Mosnier I, Borel S et al (2013) Evolution of electrode array diameter for hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 133:116–122. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2012.723824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Santa Maria PL, Gluth MB, Yuan Y et al (2014) Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation : a meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol 35:256–269. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hunter JB, Gifford RH, Wanna GB et al (2016) Hearing preservation outcomes with a Mid-Scala electrode in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 37:235–240. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Helbig S, Adel Y, Rader T, Sto T (2016) Long-term hearing preservation outcomes after cochlear implantation for electric-acoustic stimulation. Otol Neurotol 37:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Erixon E, Köbler S, Rask-Andersen H (2012) Cochlear implantation and hearing preservation : results in 21 consecutively operated patients using the round window approach. Acta Otolaryngol 132:923–931. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2012.680198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Adunka OF, Dillon MT, Adunka MC et al (2013) Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience. Laryngoscope 123:2509–2515. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenarz T, James C, Cuda D et al (2013) European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. Int J Audiol 52:838–848. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.802032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moran M, Dowell RC, Iseli C, Briggs RJS (2017) Hearing preservation outcomes for 139 cochlear imlant recipients using a thin straight electrode array. Otol Neurotol 38:678–684. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Usami S, Moteki H, Tsukada K et al (2014) Hearing preservation and clinical outcome of 32 consecutive electric acoustic stimulation surgeries. Acta Otolaryngol 134:717–727. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2014.894254

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lenarz T, Buechner A, Lesinski-Schiedat A et al (2009) Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Audiol Neurotol 14:22–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000206492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Briggs RJS, Tykocinski M, Lazsig R et al (2011) Development and evaluation of the modiolar research array—multi-centre collaborative study in human temporal bones. Cochlear Implant Int 12:129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moteki H, Nishio S, Miyagawa M et al (2017) Long-term results of hearing preservation cochlear implant surgery in patients with residual low frequency hearing. Acta Otolaryngol 137:516–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mertens G, Punte AK, Cochet E et al (2014) Long-term follow-up of hearing preservation in electric-acoustic stimulation patients. Otol Neurotol 35:1765–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skarzynski H, Van de Heyning P, Agrawal S, Arauz SL (2013) Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classi fi cation system. Acta Otolaryngol 133:3–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2013.869059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gstoettner W, Helbig S, Settevendemie C et al (2009) A new electrode for residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation : first clinical results. Acta Otolaryngol 129:371–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480802552568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. James CJ, Fraysse B, Deguine O et al (2006) Combined electroacoustic stimulation in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurotol 11:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000095615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Causon A, Verschuur C, Newman TA (2015) A retrospective analysis of the contribution of reported factors in cochlear implantation on hearing preservation outcomes. Audiol Neurootol 36:1137–1145

    Google Scholar 

  21. Erixon E, Rask-Andersen H (2015) Hearing and patient satisfaction among 19 patients who received implants intended for hybrid hearing. Ear Hear 36:271–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Santa Maria PL, Domville-lewis C, Sucher CM et al (2013) Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation: hearing and quality of life after 2 years. Otol Neurotol 34:526–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Oleson J et al (2017) Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 Cochlear implant: final outcomes. Laryngoscope 126:962–973. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25572.Multicenter

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al (2005) Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implant: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 125:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sun C, Hsu C, Chen P, Wu H (2015) Residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation via round window or cochleostomy approach. Laryngoscope 125:1715–1719. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Snels C, IntHout J, Mylanus EAM et al (2019) Hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery: a meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol Neurotol 40:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Réhabilitation chirurgicale mini-invasive et robotisée de l’audition, Paris, France

    Elisabeth Mamelle, Olivier Sterkers, Ghizlene Lahlou, Evelyne Ferrary, Yann Nguyen & Isabelle Mosnier

  2. Otolaryngology Department, Otology, Auditory Implants and Skull Base Surgery Unit, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Bâtiment Paul Castaigne, 50-52 boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France

    Elisabeth Mamelle, Olivier Sterkers, Ghizlene Lahlou, Evelyne Ferrary, Yann Nguyen & Isabelle Mosnier

  3. Public Health Department, AP-HP, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

    Benjamin Granger

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Mamelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Granger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Sterkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ghizlene Lahlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evelyne Ferrary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yann Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isabelle Mosnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Mamelle.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mamelle, E., Granger, B., Sterkers, O. et al. Long-term residual hearing in cochlear implanted adult patients who were candidates for electro-acoustic stimulation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 705–713 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05745-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05745-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation