Hearing Preservation in Pediatric Recipients of Cochlear Implants

A Morgan Selleck,Lisa R Park,Baishakhi Choudhury,Holly F B Teagle,Jennifer S Woodard,Erika B Gagnon,Kevin D Brown
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002120
Abstract:Objective: To determine factors that influence low-frequency hearing preservation following pediatric cochlear implantation and compare hearing preservation outcomes between 20 and 24 mm depth lateral wall electrodes. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Pediatric cochlear implant recipients (under the age of 18) who presented preoperatively with a low-frequency pure tone average (LFPTA; 125, 250 and 500 Hz) ≤ 70 dB HL. Intervention: Cochlear implantation MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:: Multiple logistic regression evaluating the influence of variables on change in LFPTA including preoperative low-frequency hearing, lateral wall or perimodiolar electrode, progressive vs stable hearing, side, time from surgery, and the presence or the absence of enlarged vestibular aqueduct. A second analysis reviews the 12-month postactivation hearing preservation of a subset of subjects implanted with modern lateral wall electrodes. Results: A total of 105 subjects were included from the last 10 years for our multiple logistic regression analysis. This demonstrated a significant correlation of poorer preoperative low-frequency hearing with change in LFPTA. A significant negative effect of electrode type, specifically perimodiolar electrodes was also seen. Forty-five subjects from the last 3 years undergoing cochlear implantation with a lateral wall electrode demonstrated an overall 12-month preservation rate (LFPTA < 90 dB) of 82%. Differences in preservation rates existed between different electrodes. Conclusion: Preservation of low-frequency hearing following cochlear implantation is predicted both by preoperative low-frequency hearing as well as type of electrode implanted. Consistent low-frequency hearing preservation is possible in pediatric subjects receiving lateral wall electrodes, although differences exist between electrode types.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?