Cargando…

A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in hearing outcomes or stimulation levels between Advanced Bionics straight and precurved arrays. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review across three implant centers. SETTING: Tertiary centers for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation. PATIEN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eitutis, Susan T., Vickers, Deborah A., Tebbutt, Karen, Thomas, Tisa, Jiang, Dan, de Klerk, Anel, Clemesha, Jennifer, Chung, Mark, Bance, Manohar L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10662583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37889939
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004048
_version_ 1785148568349179904
author Eitutis, Susan T.
Vickers, Deborah A.
Tebbutt, Karen
Thomas, Tisa
Jiang, Dan
de Klerk, Anel
Clemesha, Jennifer
Chung, Mark
Bance, Manohar L.
author_facet Eitutis, Susan T.
Vickers, Deborah A.
Tebbutt, Karen
Thomas, Tisa
Jiang, Dan
de Klerk, Anel
Clemesha, Jennifer
Chung, Mark
Bance, Manohar L.
author_sort Eitutis, Susan T.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in hearing outcomes or stimulation levels between Advanced Bionics straight and precurved arrays. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review across three implant centers. SETTING: Tertiary centers for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation. PATIENTS: One hundred fifteen pediatric and 205 adult cochlear implants (CIs) were reviewed. All patients were implanted under the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2009 guidelines with a HiRes Ultra SlimJ or Mid-Scala electrode array. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing preservation after implantation, as well as CI-only listening scores for Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentences were compared 1 year after implantation. Stimulation levels for threshold and comfort levels were also compared 1 year after implantation. RESULTS: Hearing preservation was significantly better with the SlimJ compared with the Mid-Scala electrode array. Bamford-Kowal-Bench outcomes were not significantly different between the two arrays in any listening condition. Stimulation levels were not different between arrays but did vary across electrode contacts. At least one electrode was deactivated in 33% of implants but was more common for the SlimJ device. CONCLUSION: Modern straight and precurved arrays from Advanced Bionics did not differ in hearing performance or current requirements. Although hearing preservation was possible with both devices, the SlimJ array would still be the preferred electrode in cases where hearing preservation was a priority. Unfortunately, the SlimJ device was also prone to poor sound perception on basal electrodes. Further investigation is needed to determine if deactivated electrodes are associated with electrode position/migration, and if programming changes are needed to optimize the use of these high-frequency channels.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10662583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106625832023-11-21 A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays Eitutis, Susan T. Vickers, Deborah A. Tebbutt, Karen Thomas, Tisa Jiang, Dan de Klerk, Anel Clemesha, Jennifer Chung, Mark Bance, Manohar L. Otol Neurotol Cochlear Implants OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in hearing outcomes or stimulation levels between Advanced Bionics straight and precurved arrays. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review across three implant centers. SETTING: Tertiary centers for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation. PATIENTS: One hundred fifteen pediatric and 205 adult cochlear implants (CIs) were reviewed. All patients were implanted under the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2009 guidelines with a HiRes Ultra SlimJ or Mid-Scala electrode array. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing preservation after implantation, as well as CI-only listening scores for Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentences were compared 1 year after implantation. Stimulation levels for threshold and comfort levels were also compared 1 year after implantation. RESULTS: Hearing preservation was significantly better with the SlimJ compared with the Mid-Scala electrode array. Bamford-Kowal-Bench outcomes were not significantly different between the two arrays in any listening condition. Stimulation levels were not different between arrays but did vary across electrode contacts. At least one electrode was deactivated in 33% of implants but was more common for the SlimJ device. CONCLUSION: Modern straight and precurved arrays from Advanced Bionics did not differ in hearing performance or current requirements. Although hearing preservation was possible with both devices, the SlimJ array would still be the preferred electrode in cases where hearing preservation was a priority. Unfortunately, the SlimJ device was also prone to poor sound perception on basal electrodes. Further investigation is needed to determine if deactivated electrodes are associated with electrode position/migration, and if programming changes are needed to optimize the use of these high-frequency channels. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-12 2023-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10662583/ /pubmed/37889939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004048 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of Otology & Neurotology, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cochlear Implants
Eitutis, Susan T.
Vickers, Deborah A.
Tebbutt, Karen
Thomas, Tisa
Jiang, Dan
de Klerk, Anel
Clemesha, Jennifer
Chung, Mark
Bance, Manohar L.
A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title_full A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title_fullStr A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title_full_unstemmed A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title_short A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays
title_sort multicenter comparison of 1-yr functional outcomes and programming differences between the advanced bionics mid-scala and slimj electrode arrays
topic Cochlear Implants
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10662583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37889939
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004048
work_keys_str_mv AT eitutissusant amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT vickersdeboraha amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT tebbuttkaren amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT thomastisa amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT jiangdan amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT deklerkanel amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT clemeshajennifer amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT chungmark amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT bancemanoharl amulticentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT eitutissusant multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT vickersdeboraha multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT tebbuttkaren multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT thomastisa multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT jiangdan multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT deklerkanel multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT clemeshajennifer multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT chungmark multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays
AT bancemanoharl multicentercomparisonof1yrfunctionaloutcomesandprogrammingdifferencesbetweentheadvancedbionicsmidscalaandslimjelectrodearrays