Impact of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design on Postoperative Speech Performance

Saturday, September 28, 2024

9:54 AM – 10:00 AM EDT

Location: MBCC, 231

Disclosure(s):

William Pennington-FitzGerald, MD:

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

Nicholas A. Waring, MD:

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

Mickie J. Hamiter, MD:

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

Ana H. Kim, MD:

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

Introduction: The goal of this study was to compare cochlear implant (CI) speech performance between three different CI electrode arrays – lateral wall, midscala, and perimodiolar.

Methods: This was a retrospective study at an academic CI center. It included adult patients who received a CI from January 2017 to December 2022 (n = 129). Patients received 1 of 9 different electrode arrays, which were categorized into 3 groups: Lateral wall (LW) electrodes (n =36) included CI522, CI622 (Cochlear American), Flex24, and Flex28 (Med El). Midscala (MS) electrodes (n = 16) included HiRes Ultra 3D (Advanced Bionics). Perimodiolar (PM) electrodes (n = 77) included CI512, CI532, CI612, and CI632 (Cochlear American). Speech perception was measured by Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) scores collected at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation. CNC scores were compared between groups at each time point using one-way ANOVA.

Results: Pre-op mean pure tone average and CNC were similar among the LW, MS, and PM groups, while there were significant differences in mean age among the three groups (p = 0.035, one-way ANOVA). Post-implantation CNC scores for the LW and MS groups showed little change from 3 to 24 months, while scores in the PM group increased consistently over this period. At 3 months, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups (p = 0.138, one-way ANOVA). There were significant differences at 6 months (p = 0.012, one-way ANOVA), 12 months (p = 0.029, one-way ANOVA), and 24 months (p = 0.009, one-way ANOVA), with scores in the PM group being notably higher than those of other two groups at each of the 3 latter timepoints.

Conclusions: Our study found CI electrode array can significantly influence speech performance. While the 3 array groups performed similarly at 3 months, PM arrays showed superior speech perception at 6 months and thereafter. While these findings highlight the potential importance of electrode array design in CI outcomes, larger study design is needed to confirm our findings.

Presenting Author(s)

William Pennington-FitzGerald, MD

Resident
Boston Medical Center
Boston, MA, United States

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

Co-Author(s)

Nicholas A. Waring, MD

Resident Physician
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA, United States

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

Neurotology Fellow
Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons
Tampa , FL, United States

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

Megan Kuhlmey, AuD

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States

Disclosure information not submitted.

Senior Author(s)

Ana H. Kim, MD

Professor
Columbia University Medical Center
New York, NY, United States

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