Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T08:34:53.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of long-term speech and impedance outcome of cochlear implantation in prelingual deaf paediatric patients between cochleostomy and round window insertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2024

Nidhin Das K. Open the ORCID record for Nidhin Das K. [Opens in a new window] ,
Vidhu Sharma ,
Vishudh Mohan ,
Kapil Soni Open the ORCID record for Kapil Soni [Opens in a new window]  and
Amit Goyal Open the ORCID record for Amit Goyal [Opens in a new window]
Nidhin Das K.
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
Vidhu Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
Vishudh Mohan
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
Kapil Soni
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
Amit Goyal*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
*
Corresponding author: Amit Goyal; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To compare long-term impedance and functional outcomes between the round window and cochleostomy approaches in cochlear implantation patients.

Methods

Ninety prelingually deafened children who underwent unilateral cochlear implantation participated in this prospective observational study. Participants were divided into round window and cochleostomy groups. Impedance and speech perception were assessed at switch-on, and at 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results

Impedance was similar between groups except at switch-on, where the cochleostomy group had higher basal turn impedance (2.41 vs 1.32 kΩ). At 24 months, speech outcomes were as follows: word recognition in quiet (round window 96.2 per cent, cochleostomy 95.3 per cent), word recognition in noise (round window 88.8 per cent, cochleostomy 87.4 per cent), sentence recognition (round window 78.2 per cent, cochleostomy 77.3 per cent), and vowel recognition (round window 91.2 per cent, cochleostomy 90.1 per cent).

Conclusion

No significant differences in impedance or speech outcomes were found between the round window and cochleostomy groups, except for higher basal-turn impedance at switch-on in the cochleostomy group, indicating more fibrosis.

Keywords

cochlear implantsinner earhearing lossspeech disorderslanguage disorderscommunication disorderssensorineural
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Amit Goyal takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Blebea, CM, Ujvary, LP, Necula, V, Dindelegan, MG, Perde-Schrepler, M, Stamate, MC, et al. Current concepts and future trends in increasing the benefits of cochlear implantation: a narrative review. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022;58:747Google Scholar
Dazert, S, Peter Thomas, J, Loth, A, Zahnert, T, Stöver, T. Cochlear implantation: diagnosis, indications, and auditory rehabilitation results. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2020;117:690–700.Google Scholar
Deep, NL, Dowling, EM, Jethanamest, D, Carlson, ML. Cochlear implantation: an overview. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019;80:169–77Google Scholar
Avasarala, VS, Jinka, SK, Jeyakumar, A. Complications of cochleostomy versus round window surgical approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus 2022;14:e25451Google Scholar
Adunka, OF, Dillon, MT, Adunka, MC, King, ER, Pillsbury, HC, Buchman, CA. Cochleostomy versus round window insertions: influence on functional outcomes in electric–acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:613–8Google Scholar
Richard, C, Fayad, JN, Doherty, J, FH, Linthicum Jr. Round window versus cochleostomy technique in cochlear implantation: histological findings. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1181–7Google Scholar
Elafandi, H, Khalifa, MA, Elguindy, AS. Cochlear implantation outcomes with round window electrode insertion versus cochleostomy insertion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;138:110272Google Scholar
Poley, M, Overmyer, E, Craun, P, Holcomb, M, Reilly, B, White, D, et al. Does pediatric cochlear implant insertion technique affect intraoperative neural response telemetry thresholds? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:1404–7Google Scholar
Briggs, RJS, Tykocinski, M, Stidham, K, Roberson, JB. Cochleostomy site: implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:870–6Google Scholar
Cheng, X, Wang, B, Liu, Y, Yuan, Y, Shu, Y, Chen, B. Comparable electrode impedance and speech perception at 12 months after cochlear implantation using round window versus cochleostomy: an analysis of 40 patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2018;80:248–58Google Scholar
Briggs, RJS, Tykocinski, M, Xu, J, Risi, F, Svehla, M, Cowan, R, et al. Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(suppl 1):42–8Google Scholar
Jiam, NT, Jiradejvong, P, Pearl, MS, Limb, CJ. The effect of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on cochlear implant electrode position: a flat-panel computed tomography study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;142:873–80Google Scholar
Schraivogel, S, Aebischer, P, Weder, S, Caversaccio, M, Wimmer, W. Cochlear implant electrode impedance subcomponents as biomarker for residual hearing. Front Neurol 2023;14:1183116Google Scholar
Roland, PS, Wright, CG, Isaacson, B. Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1397–402Google Scholar
Mittal, R, Raj, A, WVBS, Ramalingam. Hindi language tool for assessing pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:1490–9Google Scholar
Hamada, S, Omara, A, Sefein, IK, Younes, A. The impact of electrode type on intraoperative and postoperative telemetry measures in cochlear implant using different surgical technique. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2016;32:264–70Google Scholar
Gu, P, Jiang, Y, Gao, X, Huang, S, Yuan, Y, Wang, G, et al. Effects of cochlear implant surgical technique on post-operative electrode impedance. Acta Otolaryngol 2016;136:677–81Google Scholar
Wilk, M, Hessler, R, Mugridge, K, Jolly, C, Fehr, M, Lenarz, T, et al. Impedance changes and fibrous tissue growth after cochlear implantation are correlated and can be reduced using a dexamethasone eluting electrode. PloS One 2016;11:e0147552Google Scholar
Chang, YP, Chang, RY, Lin, CY, Luo, X. Mandarin tone and vowel recognition in cochlear implant users: effects of talker variability and bimodal hearing. Ear Hear 2016;37:271–81Google Scholar
Zhu, M, Wang, X, Fu, QJ. Development and validation of the Mandarin disyllable recognition test. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:855–61Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Wong, LLN, Chen, F, Xi, X. Tone and sentence perception in young Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1923–30Google Scholar
Kang, BJ, Kim, AH. Comparison of cochlear implant performance after round window electrode insertion compared with traditional cochleostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:822–6Google Scholar