Otology/Neurotology/Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, U.S.A.
Otol Neurotol. 2010 Sep;31(7):1049-54. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d8d6fe.
To assess whether combined electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) provides a significant hearing-in-quiet advantage over ipsilateral electrical stimulation alone, ipsilateral acoustic stimulation alone, or full-length cochlear implantation without preserved hearing.
Tertiary care academic referral center.
Two matched groups of cochlear implant (CI) patients that were implanted with either an EAS or full-length device and use similar speech processing strategies.
EAS cochlear implantation and hearing preservation (n = 10, EAS group) or conventional CI (n = 10, conventional CI group) without hearing preservation.
Status of residual hearing and speech perception data in quiet at 3 and 6 months after fitting.
Preoperatively, the mean aided Consonant Nucleus Consonant Word Test word score was 24.2 +/- 8.3% for the EAS group and 20.7 +/- 11.36% for the conventional CI group (p = 0.14). In the conventional CI group, hearing was not preserved after surgery in any subject, whereas 9 of the 10 subjects in the EAS group had hearing preservation. Mean CNC word scores at 6 months after activation using electrical stimulation alone were 50.3 +/- 11.53% in the EAS group and 53.8 +/- 17.32% in the conventional CI group (p = 0.81). Between-condition comparisons among the EAS subjects revealed that combined stimulation was significantly better than either the electrical or acoustic stimulation condition alone (p < 0.05). When compared with the conventional CI group, combined stimulation in EAS subjects was again superior (p < 0.05).
Limited length CI with ipsilateral hearing preservation provides comparable speech perception performance results to conventional CI when electric stimulation alone is used. The addition of ipsilateral acoustic stimulation in ears with preserved residual hearing provides an additional benefit over electrical stimulation alone.
评估联合电声刺激(EAS)是否比同侧单纯电刺激、同侧单纯声刺激或不保留听力的全长人工耳蜗植入提供更显著的安静听力优势。
三级保健学术转诊中心。
两组匹配的人工耳蜗植入(CI)患者,一组植入 EAS 或全长装置,并使用类似的语音处理策略;另一组植入不保留听力的传统 CI。
EAS 耳蜗植入和听力保护(n = 10,EAS 组)或不保留听力的传统 CI(n = 10,传统 CI 组)。
植入后 3 个月和 6 个月时残留听力和安静环境下言语感知数据的状态。
术前,EAS 组的平均助听辅音核辅音词测试词得分(24.2 +/- 8.3%)高于传统 CI 组(20.7 +/- 11.36%)(p = 0.14)。在传统 CI 组中,手术后没有受试者保留听力,而 EAS 组中有 9 名受试者保留了听力。在仅使用电刺激激活后 6 个月时,EAS 组的平均 CNC 单词得分(50.3 +/- 11.53%)高于传统 CI 组(53.8 +/- 17.32%)(p = 0.81)。EAS 受试者的组间比较显示,联合刺激明显优于单独电刺激或声刺激(p < 0.05)。与传统 CI 组相比,EAS 组联合刺激再次具有优势(p < 0.05)。
使用单纯电刺激时,同侧听力保留的有限长度 CI 可提供与传统 CI 相当的言语感知结果。在保留残余听力的耳朵中增加同侧声刺激比单独电刺激提供了额外的益处。