title: Is electric acoustic stimulation better than conventional cochlear implantation for speech perception in quiet?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess whether combined electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) provides a significant hearing-in-quiet advantage over ipsilateral electrical stimulation alone, ipsilateral acoustic stimulation alone, or full-length cochlear implantation without preserved hearing.
  
  
  METHODS
  Tertiary care academic referral center.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two matched groups of cochlear implant (CI) patients that were implanted with either an EAS or full-length device and use similar speech processing strategies.
  
  
  METHODS
  EAS cochlear implantation and hearing preservation (n = 10, EAS group) or conventional CI (n = 10, conventional CI group) without hearing preservation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Status of residual hearing and speech perception data in quiet at 3 and 6 months after fitting.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Preoperatively, the mean aided Consonant Nucleus Consonant Word Test word score was 24.2 +/- 8.3% for the EAS group and 20.7 +/- 11.36% for the conventional CI group (p = 0.14). In the conventional CI group, hearing was not preserved after surgery in any subject, whereas 9 of the 10 subjects in the EAS group had hearing preservation. Mean CNC word scores at 6 months after activation using electrical stimulation alone were 50.3 +/- 11.53% in the EAS group and 53.8 +/- 17.32% in the conventional CI group (p = 0.81). Between-condition comparisons among the EAS subjects revealed that combined stimulation was significantly better than either the electrical or acoustic stimulation condition alone (p < 0.05). When compared with the conventional CI group, combined stimulation in EAS subjects was again superior (p < 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Limited length CI with ipsilateral hearing preservation provides comparable speech perception performance results to conventional CI when electric stimulation alone is used. The addition of ipsilateral acoustic stimulation in ears with preserved residual hearing provides an additional benefit over electrical stimulation alone.
authors.affiliation: Otology/Neurotology/Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, U.S.A. adunka@med.unc.edu
authors.forename: Oliver F
authors.initials: OF
authors.lastname: Adunka
authors.forename: Harold C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Pillsbury
authors.forename: Marcia C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Adunka
authors.forename: Craig A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Buchman
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001309:Auditory Threshold / Q000502:physiology; D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D004599:Electric Stimulation Therapy; D004777:Environment; D005260:Female; D006309:Hearing / Q000502:physiology; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000523:psychology* / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D016896:Treatment Outcome