title: A matched-pair comparison of two cochlear implant systems.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the overall performance of two implant systems based on audiologic outcome, tinnitus handicap, and quality of life using objective and subjective measures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective cohort study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two matched groups, with 24 Nucleus 22 SPEAK (Advanced Bionics, Symlar, CA) and 24 Clarion CIS (Cochlear Corporation, Sydney, Australia), were selected. Patients were administered survey forms to evaluate subjective tinnitus and dizziness symptomatology, as well as a 27-item tinnitus handicap questionnaire. Both groups were administered survey forms to assess the frequency of implant use, the subjective benefit derived, and the perceived impact on quality of life. The 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36) Health Survey was administered as a measure of quality of life at 6 months postimplant. Standardized open-set speech recognition parameters were evaluated at 24 months postimplant. Vestibular function was determined by pre-and postimplant electronystagmography with caloric testing. The first author was blinded to implant type during data collection and analysis
  
  
  RESULTS
  Cochlear implantation yielded a significant 22% reduction in overall tinnitus handicap (p < .05). There was a 27% reduction in vestibular function that failed to show statistical significance (p = .78). There was no significant reduction in vestibular function postimplant in either group. The average open-set speech perception responses at 24 months postimplant were monosyllabic word recognition 45%, phoneme recognition 65%, and sentence recognition 86.5%. There was no significant difference with respect to implant type. Overall, 76% of implantees reported satisfaction with the amount of subjective benefit they received from their implants. Furthermore, 96% reported an overall positive impact on quality of life.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall, there was no significant difference between the two multichannel devices studied using the present software and hardware configurations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otolaryngology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre, Ontario.
authors.forename: Kevin M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Higgins
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Julian M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Nedzelski
authors.forename: David B
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Shipp
authors.forename: Lynne D
authors.initials: LD
authors.lastname: McIlmoyl
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003054:Cochlear Implants / Q000191:economics / Q000523:psychology / Q000592:standards*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006306:Health Surveys; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D011788:Quality of Life; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014012:Tinnitus / Q000628:therapy