Predictive factors for short‐ and long‐term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional‐length electrodes

• DOI: 10.1002/lary.26714
• Publication Date: 2017-06-23T04:39:00Z
• Authors: George B. Wanna; Brendan P. O'Connell; David O. Francis; Rene H. Gifford; Jacob B. Hunter; Jourdan T. Holder; Marc L. Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F. Labadie; David S. Haynes
• Keywords: Cochlear Implantation; Round window

Objectives/Hypothesis The aims of this study were to i nvestigate short‐ and long‐term rates hearing preservation after cochlear implantation identify factors that impact preservation. Study Design Retrospective review. Methods Patients undergoing with conventional‐length electrodes air‐conduction thresholds ≤80 dB HL at 250 Hz preoperatively included. Hearing was defined as Hz. Results sample included 196 patients (225 implants). Overall, the rate short‐term 38% (84/225), 18% (33/188) preserving long term. Multivariate analysis showed better preoperative predictive short (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91‐0.95, P < .001) follow‐up (OR: 0.94, CI: 0.91‐0.97, .001). Lateral wall mid‐scala had 3.4 (95% 1.4‐8.6, = .009) 5.6‐times 1.8‐17.3, .003) higher odds than perimodiolar arrays follow‐up, respectively. Long‐term data revealed for lateral 7.6, 1.6‐36.1, .01), but not 3.1, 0.4‐23.1, .28), when compared electrodes. Round window/extended round window (RW/ERW) approaches associated (21%) cochleostomy (0%) ( 0.002) on univariate analysis. Conclusions Better residual hearing, electrodes, RW/ERW are functional Level Evidence 4. Laryngoscope , 128:482–489, 2018