1,321
Views
51
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
AUDIOLOGY

Hearing preservation and clinical outcome of 32 consecutive electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) surgeries

, , , , , , , , , , & show all
Pages 717-727 | Received 23 Jan 2014, Accepted 07 Feb 2014, Published online: 19 May 2014

Figures & data

Table I. Clinical features of cases undergoing electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Figure 1. Hearing preservation results of group 1 with FLEX24 electrode. The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Shadow indicates the audiological criteria for electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) clinical trial (patient nos. 1–24 fulfilling the audiological criteria for EAS, nos. 25–27 not fulfilling the criteria for the clinical trial for EAS).

Figure 1. Hearing preservation results of group 1 with FLEX24 electrode. The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Shadow indicates the audiological criteria for electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) clinical trial (patient nos. 1–24 fulfilling the audiological criteria for EAS, nos. 25–27 not fulfilling the criteria for the clinical trial for EAS).

Figure 2. (A) Average audiogram of group 1. The lines indicate preoperative, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved. (B) Hearing level of group 1 with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Figure 2. (A) Average audiogram of group 1. The lines indicate preoperative, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved. (B) Hearing level of group 1 with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Table II. Average hearing thresholds of electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) patients in group 1.

Figure 3. Hearing preservation results of group 2 (cases with less residual hearing and receiving longer electrodes (no. 28 with standard electrode, nos. 29 and 30 with FLEXSOFT electrode). The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved.

Figure 3. Hearing preservation results of group 2 (cases with less residual hearing and receiving longer electrodes (no. 28 with standard electrode, nos. 29 and 30 with FLEXSOFT electrode). The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved.

Figure 4. (A) Average audiogram of group 2. The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved. (B) Hearing level of group 2 with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Figure 4. (A) Average audiogram of group 2. The lines indicate preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative audiograms. Note that good hearing preservation could be achieved. (B) Hearing level of group 2 with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Table III. Average hearing thresholds of electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) patients in group 2.

Figure 5. Speech discrimination and perception scores of group 1 (with FLEX24 electrode). Speech discrimination and perception scores were improved postoperatively with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.

Figure 5. Speech discrimination and perception scores of group 1 (with FLEX24 electrode). Speech discrimination and perception scores were improved postoperatively with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.

Figure 6. Speech discrimination and perception scores of group 2 (standard electrode or FLEXSOFT electrode with less residual hearing). Speech discrimination and perception scores were improved postoperatively with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.

Figure 6. Speech discrimination and perception scores of group 2 (standard electrode or FLEXSOFT electrode with less residual hearing). Speech discrimination and perception scores were improved postoperatively with electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.