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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |