Impact of hair cell preservation in cochlear implantation: combined electric and acoustic hearing.
OBJECTIVE
This article reviews some of the potential benefits of preserving low-frequency residual hearing using a short-electrode cochlear implant. Both the status of the inner ear and acoustic characteristics of speech cues are important factors. How does the magnitude of the potential benefits depend on the candidacy criteria for implantation with a hearing-preservation electrode?


BACKGROUND
Previous research has demonstrated that preserving residual hearing in cochlear implantation can provide significant advantages for the understanding of speech in background noise as well as for the aesthetic qualities of music and other sounds. Developing optimal candidacy guidelines for these devices is a current goal.


METHODS
In a large group of patients with Hybrid (acoustic + electric) cochlear implant, performance in the recognition of speech in background of other talkers is measured and compared with patients with traditional long-electrode implant. In addition, a number of patient characteristics are compared to success with the short-electrode implant.


RESULTS
Age and duration of hearing loss are found to be predictive factors for the success of the short-electrode approach.


CONCLUSIONS
Optimal criterion for candidacy for the use of the short-electrode versus a traditional long electrode can improve the outlook for patients with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss.
Turner
Christopher W
CW
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. Christopherturner@uiowa.edu
Gantz
Bruce J
BJ
Karsten
Sue
S
Fowler
Jennifer
J
Reiss
Lina A
LA
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D005260:Female; D006198:Hair Cells, Auditory / Q000502:physiology*; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology
Hear Res. 1984 Oct;16(1):55-74
6511673
Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 May;124(4):344-7
15224850
Otol Neurotol. 2009 Oct;30(7):921-9
19692936
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Dec;104(6):3586-96
9857517
Acta Otolaryngol. 2005 May;125(5):481-91
16092537
Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 May;124(4):348-52
15224851
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Feb;29(2):160-7
18025998
Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CS20-4
12709676
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Feb;103(2):1128-40
9479766
Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(2):105-12
18057874
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):769-78
18816425
Am J Otol. 1999 Jul;20(4):445-52
10431885
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug;118(2):1111-21
16158665
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1351-61
15807023
Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:2-5
17063003
J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Oct;112(4):1664-74
12398471
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1999 Nov-Dec;61(6):334-40
10545807
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):695-730
18816422
Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:63-8
17063013
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Feb;29(2):168-73
18165793
Ear Hear. 2004 Feb;25(1):9-21
14770014
Ear Hear. 2007 Jun;28(3):412-23
17485990
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1729-35
15101651
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2001 Sep;110(9):883-91
11558767
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1164-75
11519583
Int J Audiol. 2006 Mar;45(3):153-71
16579491
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jul;104(1):432-41
9670535
Laryngoscope. 2003 Oct;113(10):1726-30
14520097
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007 Jun;8(2):241-57
17347777