Department of Otolaryngology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, #1 Shuaifuyuan, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China.
Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Feb;281(2):719-729. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08151-1. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different mapping procedures based on anatomic or default frequency distribution in postlingual deafness adults who underwent cochlear implantation (CI).
Forty-eight adults with postlingual deafness who underwent CI (MED-EL) from January 2021 to May 2022 in our hospital were prospectively recruited. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups (the anatomic group and the default group). Postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans were evaluated with Otoplan to determine the angular insertion depth (AID) and the specific locations of the intracochlear electrodes. Anatomic maps were imported into MAESTRO 9.0 software (MED-EL) for anatomy-based fitting for anatomic group, while default mapping program was set up for the default group. Hearing thresholds, Speech Recognition Scores (SRS), and subjects' auditory and musical abilities were evaluated 1 year after using the CI. Differences were determined in two groups using Stata statistical software, with significance defined as p < 0.05.
SRS under noisy conditions was significantly greater for anatomic group than the default group (p = 0.02). Under quiet conditions, however, mean hearing thresholds (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and SRS did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.07). Modified questionnaires showed that auditory (p = 0.02) and musical (p = 0.01) quality were significantly better following the anatomic mapping than the default procedure.
CI program based on the anatomic distribution may bring better SRS under noise conditions as well as better auditory and musical qualities than based on the default frequency distribution.
本研究旨在比较基于解剖或默认频率分布的不同映射程序在后天性耳聋成年人接受人工耳蜗植入(CI)后的结果。
前瞻性招募 2021 年 1 月至 2022 年 5 月在我院接受 CI(MED-EL)的 48 例后天性耳聋成年人。将参与者随机分配到两组(解剖组和默认组)。术后使用 Otoplan 对计算机断层扫描(CT)进行评估,以确定角插入深度(AID)和内耳蜗电极的特定位置。将解剖图导入 MAESTRO 9.0 软件(MED-EL),用于解剖组的基于解剖的拟合,而默认组则设置默认映射程序。植入 CI 后 1 年评估听力阈值、言语识别得分(SRS)以及受试者的听觉和音乐能力。使用 Stata 统计软件确定两组之间的差异,以 p < 0.05 为差异有统计学意义。
解剖组在嘈杂环境下的 SRS 显著高于默认组(p = 0.02)。然而,在安静环境下,两组之间的平均听力阈值(0.5、1、2 和 4 kHz)和 SRS 没有显著差异(p = 0.07)。改良问卷显示,与默认程序相比,解剖映射后的听觉(p = 0.02)和音乐(p = 0.01)质量显著更好。
基于解剖分布的 CI 程序在嘈杂环境下可能会带来更好的 SRS,以及更好的听觉和音乐质量,而不是基于默认频率分布。