Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:57:11.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spectral resolution and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the round window versus cochleostomy technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

B Demir ,
M Yüksel ,
A Atılgan ,
A Ciprut  and
C Batman
B Demir*
Affiliation:
Departments of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Ankara Medipol University, School of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
M Yüksel
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Ankara Medipol University, School of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
A Atılgan
Affiliation:
İstanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Audiology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
A Ciprut
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
C Batman
Affiliation:
Departments of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Ankara Medipol University, School of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Berat Demir, Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Marmara University Medical Faculty, Mimar Sinan Caddesi No. 41, Fevzi Cakmak Mahallesi, Ust Kaynarca-Pendik, 34899Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the spectral resolution achieved with a cochlear implant in users who were implanted using round window route electrode insertion versus a traditional cochleostomy technique.

Methods

Twenty-six patients were classified into two groups according to the surgical approach: one group (n = 13) underwent cochlear implantation via the round window technique and the other group (n = 13) underwent surgery via cochleostomy.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found in spectral ripple discrimination scores between the round window and cochleostomy groups. The round window group performed almost two times better than the cochleostomy group. Differences between Turkish matrix sentence test scores were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The spectral ripple discrimination scores of patients who had undergone round window cochlear implant electrode insertion were superior to those of patients whose cochlear implants were inserted using a classical cochleostomy technique.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationRound WindowEarSpectral ResolutionSpeech PerceptionCochleostomySpectral Ripple DiscriminationCochlear Implants
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 6 , June 2021 , pp. 513 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr B Demir takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Demir, B, Binnetoglu, A, Mammodova, U, Batman, C. Scar evaluation in subperiosteal temporal pocket versus the one-layer flap technique in cochlear implantation using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:2149–5410.1007/s00405-019-05437-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adunka, O, Unkelbach, MH, Mack, M, Hambek, M, Gstoettner, W, Kiefer, J. Cochlear implantation via the round window membrane minimizes trauma to cochlear structures: a histologically controlled insertion study. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:807–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roland, PS, Wright, CG, Isaacson, B. Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1397–402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eshraghi, AA, Ahmed, J, Krysiak, E, Ila, K, Ashman, P, Telischi, FF et al. Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2017;137:384–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, X, Wang, B, Liu, Y, Yuan, Y, Shu, Y, Chen, B. Comparable electrode impedance and speech perception at 12 months after cochlear implantation using round window versus cochleostomy: an analysis of 40 patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2018;80:248–5810.1159/000490764CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skarzynski, H, Lorens, A, Piotrowska, A, Anderson, I. Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:41–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, MA, Rubinstein, JT, Sie, KCY, Norton, SJ. Cochlear implantation in children with postlingual progressive steeply sloping high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017;28:913–19Google ScholarPubMed
Todt, I, Basta, D, Ernst, A. Does the surgical approach in cochlear implantation influence the occurrence of postoperative vertigo? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:8–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korsager, LEH, Schmidt, JH, Faber, C, Wanscher, JH. Vestibular outcome after cochlear implantation is not related to surgical technique: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial of round window approach versus cochleostomy. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:306–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, RF, Hullar, TE, Cadieux, JH, Chole, RA. Residual hearing preservation after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1221–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillsbury, HC 3rd, Dillon, MT, Buchman, CA, Staecker, H, Prentiss, SM, Ruckenstein, MJ et al. Multicenter US clinical trial with an electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) system in adults: final outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:299–305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, BJ, Kim, AH. Comparison of cochlear implant performance after round window electrode insertion compared with traditional cochleostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:822–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittal, R, Nguyen, D, Patel, AP, Debs, LH, Mittal, J, Yan, D et al. Recent advancements in the regeneration of auditory hair cells and hearing restoration. Front Mol Neurosci 2017;10:23610.3389/fnmol.2017.00236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, WR, Anderson, ES, Won, JH, Rubinstein, JT. Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral ripple resolution for cochlear-implant users. Ear Hear 2014;35:e92–810.1097/AUD.0000000000000009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Won, JH, Drennan, WR, Rubinstein, JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007;8:384–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Won, JH, Drennan, WR, Kang, RS, Rubinstein, JT. Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2010;31:796–805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, KH, Won, JH, Drennan, WR, Jameyson, E, Miyasaki, G, Norton, SJ et al. Psychoacoustic performance and music and speech perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 2012;17:189–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golub, JS, Won, JH, Drennan, WR, Worman, TD, Rubinstein, JT. Spectral and temporal measures in hybrid cochlear implant users: on the mechanism of electroacoustic hearing benefits. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:147–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, DL, Dudley, DJ, Dedhia, K, Nie, K, Drennan, WR, Won, JH et al. Effects of age and hearing mechanism on spectral resolution in normal hearing and cochlear-implanted listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2017;141:613–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zokoll, MA, Fidan, D, Turkyilmaz, D, Hochmuth, S, Ergenc, I, Sennaroglu, G et al. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol 2015;54(suppl 2):51–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitt, H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49(suppl 2):467+CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinneen, LC, Blakesley, BC. A generator for the sampling distribution of the Mann-Whitney U statistic. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 1973;22:269–73Google Scholar
Han, J-H, Lee, H-J, Kang, H, Oh, S-H, Lee, DS. Brain plasticity can predict the cochlear implant outcome in adult-onset deafness. Front Hum Neurosci 2019;13:38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisoni, DB. Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear 2000;21:70–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamakura, T, O'Malley, JT, Nadol, JB Jr. Preservation of cells of the organ of Corti and innervating dendritic processes following cochlear implantation in the human: an immunohistochemical study. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:284–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, AM, Handzel, O, Damian, D, Eddington, DK, Nadol, JB Jr. Effect of cochlear implantation on residual spiral ganglion cell count as determined by comparison with the contralateral nonimplanted inner ear in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005;114:381–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fayad, JN, Linthicum, FH Jr. Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1310–2010.1097/01.mlg.0000227176.09500.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, AM, Handzel, O, Burgess, BJ, Damian, D, Eddington, DK, Nadol, JB Jr. Is word recognition correlated with the number of surviving spiral ganglion cells and electrode insertion depth in human subjects with cochlear implants? Laryngoscope 2005;115:672–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadol, JB Jr, Shiao, JY, Burgess, BJ, Ketten, DR, Eddington, DK, Gantz, BJ et al. Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001;110:883–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, S, Cloutier, F, Philippon, D, Cote, M, Bussieres, R, Backous, DD. Outcomes review of modern hearing preservation technique in cochlear implant. Auris Nasus Larynx 2016;43:485–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanna, GB, Noble, JH, Carlson, ML, Gifford, RH, Dietrich, MS, Haynes, DS et al. Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 2014;124(suppl 6):S1–710.1002/lary.24728CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed