Does Cochlear Implant Electrode Type Impact Functional Hearing Preservation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Saturday, September 28, 2024

10:12 AM – 10:18 AM EDT

Location: MBCC, 231

Disclosure(s):

Joseph S. Schertzer, MD:

faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Nathan M. Jacob, BS:

faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Kaitlyn A. Brooks, MD:

faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Esther X. Vivas, MD:

faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Introduction: Preservation of low frequency residual hearing (LFRH) in patients undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) has been shown to improve a variety of hearing-related outcomes such as music appreciation and speech perception in noise. The purpose of this study was to assess LFRH preservation in patients undergoing CI; specifically we sought to compare the hearing preservation rates between lateral wall (LW) and perimodiolar (PM) electrode arrays.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients who received a CI at a single tertiary care institution between 2016 and 2022. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have a preoperative unaided audiogram demonstrating presence of LFRH as well as a post-operative unaided audiogram assessing preservation of LFRH. Presence of LFRH was defined as having a low frequency pure tone average (LFPTA; 125, 250, 500 Hz) less than 80 dB. The main outcomes of interest were the change in LFPTA (Δ LFPTA) and the presence of preserved LFRH following CI.

Results: A total of 51 implanted ears in 49 patients with LFRH were included in the analysis. Thirty-three ears underwent implantation with a PM electrode (mean age 62.78 years ± 17.26) and 18 ears (mean age 64.19 years ± 21.47) underwent implantation with a LW electrode. The mean preoperative LFPTA was 50.63 dB ± 13.80 and 55.79 ± 14.60 for the PM and LW groups, respectively (p= 0.109). The mean postoperative LFPTA was significantly lower for the PM group (71.84 dB ± 20.00) compared to the LW group (83.19 dB ± 19.17), p=0.028. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the PM group retained LFRH (79.31%, n = 23) compared to the LW group (33.33%, n = 6), p=0.013. The Δ LFPTA was not significantly different between the PM (-21.21 dB ± 19.18), and the LW group (-27.4 ± 20.19), p=0.142.

Conclusions: Data from this retrospective cohort study supports implantation with a PM array for superior LFRH preservation rates when compared to LW arrays. Further prospective data collection is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of electrode array type on preservation of LFRH.

Presenting Author(s)

Joseph S. Schertzer, MD

Resident Physician
Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA, United States

Disclosure(s):
faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Co-Author(s)

KA

Khaled Altartoor, MD

Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Disclosure information not submitted.
Nathan M. Jacob, BS

Medical Student
University of Central Florida College of Medicine
Orlando, FL, United States

Disclosure(s):
faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.
Kaitlyn A. Brooks, MD

Neurotology Fellow
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX, United States

Disclosure(s):
faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.

Senior Author(s)

Esther X. Vivas, MD

Professor and Division Chief, Dept Oto-HNS
Emory University - Dept of OTO/HNS
Atlanta, GA, United States

Disclosure(s):
faculty for this accredited education activity has no relationship(s) with ineligible companies to disclose.