Performance After Cochlear Reimplantation Using a Different Manufacturer

Justin Cottrell,Emily Spitzer,Arianna Winchester,Camille Dunn-Johnson,Bruce Gantz,Susan Rathgeb,Matthew Shew,Jacques Herzog,Craig Buchman,David Friedmann,Daniel Jethanamest,Sean McMenomey,Susan Waltzman,J Thomas Roland Jr
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004314
2024-10-01
Abstract:Objective: To better understand cochlear implant (CI) performance after reimplantation with a different device manufacturer. Study design: Multisite retrospective review. Setting: Tertiary referral centers. Patients: Patients older than 4 years who received a CI and subsequently underwent CI reimplantation with a different manufacturer over a 20-year period. Intervention: Reimplantation. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was difference in the best CNC score obtained with the primary CI, compared with the most recent CNC score obtained after reimplantation. Results: Twenty-nine patients met the criteria at three centers. The best average CNC score achieved by adult patients after primary cochlear implantation was 46.2% (n = 16), measured an average of 14 months (range: 3-36 mo) postoperatively. When looking at the most recent CNC score of adult patients before undergoing reimplantation, the average CNC score dropped to 19.2% (n = 17). After reimplantation, the average 3- to 6-month CNC score was 48.3% (n = 12), with most recent average CNC score being 44.4% (n = 17) measured an average of 19 months (range: 3-46 mo) postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.321; t11 = 0.48) identified in performance between the best CNC score achieved by adult patients after primary cochlear implantation, and the most recent score achieved after reimplantation (n = 12). Analysis of prerevision and postrevision speech performance was not possible in pediatric patients (<18 yr old) because of differences in tests administered. Conclusion: Patients undergoing reimplantation with a different manufacturer achieved CNC score performance comparable to their best performance with their original device.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?