Introduction: Personalization of treatment is a growing trend in various fields of medicine, and this includes cochlear implantation. Both the precise choice of the length and shape of the electrode array to fit a particular cochlear anatomy, as well as an individualized fitting setting have been suggested to improve hearing outcomes with a cochlear implant (CI). The aim of this study was to compare anatomy-based fitting (ABF) vs. default fitting in terms of frequency-to-place mismatch, speech discrimination, and subjective outcomes in MED-EL CI users.
Methods: Eight adult CI users implanted with a Synchrony ST Flex28 were enrolled prospectively. Insertion depth and tonotopic distribution of each electrode was calculated using the Otoplan software. The mismatch was calculated for each fitting strategy relative to the electrodes' tonotopic place-frequency. Speech tests and patient preference was evaluated after 9 months with ABF and 1 month after default fitting.
Results: Median angular insertion of the most apical active electrode was 594° (interquartile range 143°). ABF showed lower mismatches than default fitting in all patients (p ≤ 0.01). Mean speech discrimination score with ABF and default fitting was 73 ± 11% and 72 ± 16%, respectively (p = 0.672). Mean speech reception threshold with ABF and default fitting was 3.6 ± 3.4 dB and 4.2 ± 5.0 dB, respectively (p = 0.401). All patients except one preferred ABF when they were asked about their preference.
Conclusion: ABF maps have a lower frequency-to-place mismatch than default fitting maps. In spite of similar hearing outcomes most patients prefer ABF. More data are necessary to corroborate the benefit of the ABF over default fitting in speech and subjective tests.
Introduction: No standard protocol based on a multidisciplinary framework currently exists for the evaluation, follow-up and interpretation of Cochlear Implant (CI) outcomes in clinical routine. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and clinically implement a multidimensional Cochlear Implant (CI) outcome assessment protocol for adult CI users based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Methods: An international multidisciplinary core group of CI experts selected the most relevant ICF categories and codes for adult CI users out of the existing ICF core set for hearing loss. A well-known, commonly used instrument or method was identified and assigned to each ICF category along with quantified ICF qualifiers. These qualifiers facilitate the interpretation of CI outcomes by categorizing the outcome on a rating scale between 0 and 4, based on the severity of participants' impairment/restriction/limitation/barrier. The ICF-based CI outcome assessment protocol was applied in clinical routine in a prospective longitudinal multicenter study assessing a consecutive sample of 72 adult CI candidates before and 6 months after implantation. For each relevant ICF category, the participants' improvement, stability or deterioration was specified in a descriptive approach using ICF qualifiers.
Results: Participants either showed improved or stable ICF qualifiers after cochlear implantation across all ICF domains (e.g., Body Functions and Structures, Activities, and Participation and Environmental factors). The ICF qualifiers for environmental sound tolerance (n = 30 [45%]) and vestibular functions (n = 21 [33%]) deteriorated most frequently after implantation. ICF qualifiers for falling (n = 53 [83%]) and dizziness (n = 40 [62%]) remained stable in most participants. Auditory perception-related and communication-related categories generally improved in most participants after cochlear implantation, with 46 to 73% (n = 34 to n = 48) of CI users perceiving an improvement postoperatively.
Conclusion: This study is the first to propose and apply a ready-to-use CI outcome assessment protocol based on the ICF model, which provides a common language and comprehensive assessment protocol for the description and measurement of CI outcomes worldwide. Its straightforward outcome description and rating enables CI outcome interpretation by non-experts, enhancing multidisciplinary communication and knowledge on individual healthcare needs in CI users.