Background: Cochlear implantation with preservation of residual low-frequency hearing enables patients to utilize acoustic and electrical stimulation. It is widely accepted that preservation of residual low-frequency hearing is beneficial in both background noise and for music appreciation. The extent to which patients may benefit is not fully understood, but the importance of these concepts is reflected in electrode design developments and also refinement of surgical technique. Greater understanding is needed around factors that may affect hearing preservation. This study reports experience in adults using standard length cochlear implant arrays.
Objective: The study reviews hearing preservation outcomes using the HEARRING GROUP method for factors such as gender, electrode type, insertion depth, laterality, preoperative hearing level, and time between surgery and audiogram. Furthermore, the study reviews rates of electroacoustic stimulation use in those with postoperative functional residual low-frequency hearing.
Methodology: Retrospective case series.
Inclusion criteria: preoperative ≤ 85 dB HL at 250 Hz and aged ≥ 18 years. The hearing preservation percentages were calculated using the HEARRING group formula S=[1 - ((PTApost - PTApre)/(PTAmax - PTApre))*100]%. Preservation of > 75% was considered complete, 25 to 75% partial, and 1 to 25% minimal. Standardized operative technique with facial recess approach, posterior tympanotomy, and minimally traumatic round window insertion was performed for each implant.
Results: Fifty-three implantations in 52 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at implantation was 55.5 years. The average time since the last audiogram was 10 months. The mean average total pre and postoperative pure-tone averages were 92.4 dB, 99.2 dB, respectively, using minimum reporting standards for adult cochlear Implant (CI). Thirty percent demonstrated complete hearing preservation, 35.8% partial hearing preservation, and 20.8% minimal hearing preservation. Overall, mean hearing preservation was 52.9%. Sex, age at implantation, insertion depth, lateral versus perimodiolar electrode, and preoperative hearing level did not statistically significantly affect rates of hearing preservation in our study. There was a statistically significant deterioration in hearing preservation outcomes difference at 3 months compared with 12 months postoperatively. Only two patients within our study out of 17 with functional postoperative hearing went on to use electroacoustic stimulation.
Conclusion: Hearing preservation varies between patients and postoperative outcomes are difficult to predict. This study adds to existing literature in terms of likelihood of hearing preservation following cochlear implantation. In turn, this improves our ability to counsel patients as to the chances of preserving residual low-frequency hearing postoperatively and their ability to use electroacoustic stimulation.