Feasibility of hearing preservation for residual hearing with longer cochlear implant electrodes

Figures & data

Table 1. Subject demographics and hearing preservation outcomes.

Subject	Sex	Age at CI and side		Implant	Age of HL onset (years), type of HL	Responsible gene or etiology	Pre-op LFA (dB)	6M Post-op LFA (dB)	HP numerical scale (%)	HP classification
1	F	62	L	FLEX28	12, gradually progressive	Unknown	80.0	90.0	12.5	Minimal
2	M	50	R	FLEX28	10, gradually progressive	Mit1555	68.3	88.3	5.9	Minimal
3	F	12	L	FLEX28	0, progressive	SLC26A4	70.0	88.3	52.9	Partial
4	F	9	L	FLEX28	0, progressive	SLC26A4	50.0	60.0	81.3	Complete
5	M	67	L	FLEX28	10, gradually progressive	Otosclerosis	75.0	90.0	23.8	Minimal
6	F	34	R	FLEX28	10, gradually progressive	Unknown	68.3	81.7	81.3	Complete
7	M	53	L	FLEX28	35, progressive	CDH23	55.0	50.0	102.6	Complete
8	M	50	L	FLEX28	30, progressive	Unknown	50.0	56.7	82.1	Complete
9	M	6	L	FLEX28	2, NHS passed	Unknown	66.7	70.0	75.0	Complete
10	M	13	L	FLEX28	1, NHS passed	SLC26A4	78.3	81.7	100.0	Complete
11	F	46	L	FLEX28	40, progressive	Unknown	75.0	86.7	22.2	Minimal
12	F	66	R	FLEX28	20, gradually progressive	Unknown	68.3	90.0	0.0	Not detectable
13	M	70	R	FLEX28	55, gradually progressive	Unknown	40.0	51.7	52.3	Partial
14	F	61	L	FLEX28	Right at 55, Left at 60, Sudden HL	Unknown	66.7	88.4	5.7	Minimal
15	M	12	R	FLEX28	3, NHS passed	Unknown	78.3	78.3	100.0	Complete
16	M	7	R	FLEX soft	0, progressive	MYO15A	76.7	75.0	110.0	Complete
17	F	28	R	FLEX soft	10, gradually progressive	MYO7A	66.7	65.0	93.8	Complete
18	F	42	R	FLEX soft	25, progressive	Unknown	41.7	86.7	7.7	Minimal

HL: hearing loss, NHS: newborn hearing screening, LFA: average low frequency hearing thresholds of 125, 250 and 500Hz.

HP: hearing preservation. HP numerical scale and classification were according to Skarzynski et al. (2013) and the HEARRING group.

Figure 1. Individual and average (bold black line) hearing thresholds pre- (A) and at 6 months post-operatively (B). Threshold changes from 125 to 8000 Hz between the pre-operative and 6 months post-operative values (C). Statistically significant differences were calculated using Tukey’s test (*significant difference <0.05).

Figure 2. Scatter plots for the numerical hearing preservation scale [8] versus age at implantation (A), and versus insertion depth angle of the electrode (B). There is a moderate relationship between the hearing preservation value and age at surgery, whereas no trend was observed regarding the influence of electrode length on hearing preservation.

Figure 3. Pre- and post-operative hearing thresholds in the low frequency. Circles in red indicate individuals with complete hearing preservation (HP), and blue points indicate individuals with partial or minimal HP.

Skarzynski H, van de Heyning P, Agrawal S, et al. Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classification system. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2013;133:3–13.

 Google Scholar