These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of cochlear implant technology in sequentially bilaterally implanted adults.
    Author: Budenz CL, Roland JT, Babb J, Baxter P, Waltzman SB.
    Journal: Otol Neurotol; 2009 Sep; 30(6):731-5. PubMed ID: 19638940.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Bilateral sequential cochlear implantation outcomes are dependent on many different factors. Newer technology in the second implanted ear may also contribute to outcome. This study examines the effect of cochlear implant technology on speech recognition outcomes in a population of adult patients who have undergone bilateral sequential implantation using different technologies in each ear. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty adults who underwent bilateral sequential cochlear implantation with different technologies and processing strategies in each ear were patients for this study. Control Group A included patients (n = 8) who were simultaneously implanted, and Control Group B (n = 3) were patients who were sequentially implanted with the same technology. INTERVENTION: Bilateral sequential cochlear implantation. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measure was the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant monosyllabic word test administered in each implanted ear and in the binaural condition before and 1 year after operation. A multivariate analysis was performed to account for factors including duration of deafness, length of device usage, and severity of deafness. RESULTS: There was significant improvement from before to 1 year after the operation in word scores for the individual ears and in the binaural condition for all groups. All patients were consistent users of both devices, and the use of different technology in the second implanted ear did not affect the patients' ability to benefit from bilateral implantation despite the use of different devices and processing strategies. CONCLUSION: Bilateral sequential implantation with newer and/or differing technology in the second implanted ear did not reduce the benefits of bilateral stimulation and should not be considered a deterrent to second-sided implantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]