IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cochlear coverage with lateral wall cochlear implant electrode arrays affects post-operative speech recognition

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Weller
  • Max Eike Timm
  • Thomas Lenarz
  • Andreas Büchner

Abstract

Objectives: The goal was to investigate the relationship between the insertion angle/cochlear coverage of cochlear implant electrode arrays and post-operative speech recognition scores in a large cohort of patients implanted with lateral wall electrode arrays. Methods: Pre- and post-operative cone beam computed tomography scans of 154 ears implanted with lateral wall electrode arrays were evaluated. Traces of lateral wall and electrode arrays were combined into a virtual reconstruction of the implanted cochlea. This reconstruction was used to measure insertion angles and proportional cochlear coverage. Word recognition scores and sentence recognition scores measured 12 months after implantation using electric-only stimulation were used to examine the relationship between cochlear coverage/insertion angle and implantation outcomes. Results: Post-operative word recognition scores and the difference between post- and pre-operative word recognition scores were positively correlated with both cochlear coverage and insertion angle, however sentence recognition scores were not. A group-wise comparison of word recognition scores revealed that patients with cochlear coverage below 70% performed significantly worse than patients with coverage between 79%-82% (p = 0.003). Performance of patients with coverage above 82% was on average poorer than between 79%-82, although this finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.84). Dividing the cohort into groups based on insertion angle quadrants revealed that word recognition scores were highest above 450° insertion angle, sentence recognition scores were highest between 450° and 630° and the difference between pre- and post-operative word recognition scores was largest between 540° and 630°, however none of these differences reached statistical significance. Conclusions: The results of this study show that cochlear coverage has an effect on post-operative word recognition abilities and the benefit patients receive from their implant. Generally, higher coverage led to better outcomes, however there were results indicating that insertion past 82% cochlear coverage may not provide an additional benefit for word recognition. These findings can be useful for choosing the optimal electrode array and thereby improving cochlear implantation outcomes on a patient-individual basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Weller & Max Eike Timm & Thomas Lenarz & Andreas Büchner, 2023. "Cochlear coverage with lateral wall cochlear implant electrode arrays affects post-operative speech recognition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287450
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287450
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287450&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max Eike Timm & Omid Majdani & Tobias Weller & Mayra Windeler & Thomas Lenarz & Andreas Büchner & Rolf Benedikt Salcher, 2018. "Patient specific selection of lateral wall cochlear implant electrodes based on anatomical indication ranges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.