alexa Psychophysical Map Stability in Bilateral Sequential Cochlear Implantation: Comparing Current Audiology Methods to a New Statistical Definition.
Medicine

Medicine

Otolaryngology: Open Access

Author(s): DomvilleLewis C, Santa Maria PL, Upson G, ChesterBrowne R, Atlas MD

Abstract Share this page

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish a statistical definition for stability in cochlear implant maps. Once defined, this study aimed to compare the duration taken to achieve a stable map in first and second implants in patients who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. This article also sought to evaluate a number of factors that potentially affect map stability. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 33 patients with sensorineural hearing loss who received sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia), performed by the senior author. Psychophysical parameters of hearing threshold scores, comfort scores, and the dynamic range were measured for the apical, medial, and basal portions of the cochlear implant electrode at a range of intervals postimplantation. Stability was defined statistically as a less than 10\% difference in threshold, comfort, and dynamic range scores over three consecutive mapping sessions. A senior cochlear implant audiologist, blinded to implant order and the statistical results, separately analyzed these psychophysical map parameters using current assessment methods. First and second implants were compared for duration to achieve stability, age, gender, the duration of deafness, etiology of deafness, time between the insertion of the first and second implant, and the presence or absence of preoperative hearing aids were evaluated and its relationship to stability. Statistical analysis included performing a two-tailed Student's t tests and least squares regression analysis, with a statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between the devised statistical definition and the current audiology methods for assessing stability, with a Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.36 and a least squares regression slope (b) of 0.41, df(58), 95\% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.55 (p = 0.004). The average duration from device switch on to stability in the first implant was 87 days using current audiology methods and 81 days using the statistical definition, with no statistically significant difference between assessment methods (p = 0.2). The duration to achieve stability in the second implant was 51 days using current audiology methods and 60 days using the statistical method, and again no difference between the two assessment methods (p = 0.13). There was a significant reduction in the time to achieve stability in second implants for both audiology and statistical methods (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was a difference in duration to achieve stability based on electrode array region, with basal portions taking longer to stabilize than apical in the first implant (p = 0.02) and both apical and medial segments in second implants (p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively). No factors that were evaluated in this study, including gender, age, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, time between implant insertion, and the preoperative hearing aid status, were correlated with stability duration in either stability assessment method. CONCLUSIONS: Our statistical definition can accurately predict cochlear implant map stability when compared with current audiology practices. Cochlear implants that are implanted second tend to stabilize sooner than the first, which has a significant impact on counseling before a second implant. No factors evaluated affected the duration required to achieve stability in this study. This article was published in Ear Hear and referenced in Otolaryngology: Open Access

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsc[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords