Bercikova B¹, Kabatova Z¹, Varga L¹, Simkova L², Groma M² and Profant M¹*

¹Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University Hospital in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia
²University Hospital Bratislava, Slovakia

*Corresponding Author: Profant M, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University Hospital in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Received: July 20, 2022; Published: October 31, 2022

Abstract

Background: Many cochlear implant (CI) users struggle to obtain speech understanding, particularly pre-lingually deafened CI users, and the relationship between audiological performance and insertion depth is not established.

Aims: To determine audiological performance in Slovak CI users using a long flexible electrode.

Materials and Methods: Tone and speech audiometry at 1- and 5-years after CI surgery; and monosyllable word testing.

Results: Post-lingual onset of deafness CI users performed better than pre-lingual in tone audiometry after 1-year (except 250Hz) and in speech audiometry. Tone audiometry at 1-year predicted speech audiometry at 5-years in pre-lingually deafened CI users; and the speech audiometry in post-lingual at 1- and 5 years. Tone audiometry at 5-years predicted speech audiometry at 5-years. Tone audiometry at 1- and 5-years predicted the monosyllable word score in post-lingual onset of deafness CI users. In general, post-lingual onset of deafness CI users had more monosyllables correct. The pre-lingual onset of deafness CI user’s monosyllable word score was predicted by duration of deafness, but not CI use.

Conclusions and Significance:. This paper contributes to the few studies available in the Slovak language and shows that CI with a long flexible electrode improves audiological performance in pre- and post-lingually deafened CI users.

Keywords: Pre-Lingual; Post-lingual; Deafness; Monosyllabic Word Test; Tone Audiometry; Speech Audiometry; Long Electrode; Deep Insertion

References

1. Snik AF., et al. “The relation between age at the time of cochlear implantation and long-term speech perception abilities in congenitally deaf subjects”. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2 (1997): 121-131.
2. Waltzman SB., et al. “Delayed implantation in congenitally deaf children and adults”. Otology and Neurotology3 (2002): 333-340.
3. Schramm D., et al. “Cochlear implantation for adolescents and adults with prelinguistic deafness”. Otology and Neurotology5 (2002): 698-703.
4. Hochmair I., et al. “Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results”. Acta Otolaryngology5 (2003): 612-617.
5. Buchman CA., et al. “Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial”. Otology and Neurotology10 (2014): 773-779.
6. Durakovic N., et al. “Immediate and 1-Year Outcomes with a Slim Modiolar Cochlear Implant Electrode Array”. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery5 (2020): 731-736.
7. Hunter CR., et al. “Early Postimplant Speech Perception and Language Skills Predict Long-Term Language and Neurocognitive Outcomes Following Pediatric Cochlear Implantation”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 8 (2017): 2321-2336.
8. Verkerk MM., et al. “Survey of otolaryngology services in Ukraine and neighbouring Central and Eastern European countries”. Journal of Laryngology and Otology11 (2017): 1002-1009.
9. Dhanasingh AE., et al. “Presence of the spiral ganglion cell bodies beyond the basal turn of the human cochlea”. Cochlear Implants International3 (2020): 145-152.
10. Kuthubutheen J., et al. “The Effect of Cochlear Size on Cochlear Implantation Outcomes”. Biomed Research International 2019 (2019): 5849871.
11. Blamey PJ., et al. “Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients”. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 4 (1992): 342-348.
12. Boyd PJ. “Potential Benefits From Deeply Inserted Cochlear Implant Electrodes”. Ear and Hearing 4 (2011): 411-427.
13. Canfarotta MW., et al. “Long-Term Influence of Electrode Array Length on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users”. Laryngoscope4 (2021): 892-897.
14. Kral A and Eggermont JJ. “What's to lose and what's to learn: Development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity”. Brain Research Reviews1 (2007): 259-269.
15. Völter C., et al. “Benefits of Cochlear Implantation in Middle-Aged and Older Adults”. Clinical Interventions in Aging 15 (2020): 1555-1568.
16. Sorrentino F., et al. “Cochlear implantation in adults with auditory deprivation: What do we know about it?” American Journal of Otolaryngology2 (2020): 102366.
17. Karltorp E., et al. “Cochlear implants before 9 months of age led to more natural spoken language development without increased surgical risks”. Acta Paediatrics2 (2020): 332-341.
18. Holder JT., et al. “Duration of Processor Use Per Day Is Significantly Correlated With Speech Recognition Abilities in Adults With Cochlear Implants”. Otology and Neurotology2 (2020): e227-e231.
19. Debruyne J., et al. “Late Cochlear Implantation in Early-Deafened Adults: A Detailed Analysis of Auditory and Self-Perceived Benefits”. Audiology and Neurotology 6 (2017): 364-376.
20. Nicholas JG and Geers AE. “Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. JSLHR4 (2007): 1048-1062.

Citation

Citation: Profant M., et al. “Hearing Performance Improves Over Time Using Long Flexible Electrode Arrays in Slovak Speaking Cochlear Implant Users".Acta Scientific Otolaryngology 4.11 (2022): 50-63.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Profant M., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.