Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2021

01-12-2021 | Audiometry | Otology

Variability of fitting parameters across cochlear implant centres

Authors: Justine Wathour, Paul J. Govaerts, Naïma Deggouj

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 12/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

As a follow-up to the studies by Vaerenberg et al. (Sci World J 501738:1–12, 2014) and Browning et al. (Cochlear Implant Int 21(3):1–13, 2020), who used questionnaires, we determined whether there are between-centre variations in the fitting of cochlear implants by analysing the methodology, fitting parameters and hearing results of patients from four centres with real data. The purpose of this study is to highlight the lack of streamlined mapping guides and outcome measures with respect to cochlear implant (CI) fittings.

Methods

A retrospective study with ninety-seven post-lingual adults with a nucleus cochlear implant placed between 2003 and 2013 was included to ensure at least 5 years of follow-up.
The studied data were as follows: the methodology, including the fitter’s professional background, the method of activation, the sequence of fitting sessions, the objectives measures and hearing outcomes; and the fitting parameters, including the speech processors, programming strategy, stimulation mode, T and C levels, T-SPL and C-SPL, maxima, pulse width, loudness growth and hearing results.

Results

This investigation highlights some common practices across professionals and CI centres: the activation of a CI is behavioural; impedances are systematically measured at each fitting; and some parameters are rarely modified. However, there are also differences, either between centres, such as the sequences of fitting sessions (p < 0.05) or their approach to spectral bands (p < 0.05), or even within centres, such as the policy regarding T and C levels at high frequencies compared to those at low and mid-frequencies.

Conclusion

There are important variations between and within centres that reflect a lack of CI-related policies and outcome measures in the fitting of CI.

Clinical trials registry

NCT03700268
Literature
1.
Tokita J, Dunn C, Hansen MR (2014) Cochlear implantation and single sided deafness. CurrOpinOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg 22(5):353–358
2.
Ramos Macías A, Falcón González JC, Manrique M et al (2015) Cochlear implants as a treatment option for unilateral hearing loss severe tinnitus and hyperacusis. AudiolNeurotol 20(1):60–66
3.
Servais J, Hörmann K, Wallhäusser-Franke E (2017) Unilateral cochlear implantation reduces tinnitus loudness in bimodal hearing: a prospective study. Front Neurol 7(8):60
4.
Hughes ML (2013) Objective measures in cochlear implants. Plural Publishing, San Diego
5.
Wolfe J, Schafer E (2015) Programming cochlear implants, 2nd edn. Plural Publishing, San Diego
6.
Rader T, Doms P, Adel Y et al (2018) A method for determining precise electrical hearing thresholds in cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 57(7):502–509CrossRef
7.
Fielden CA, Kitterick PT (2016) Contralateral acoustic hearing aid use in adult unilateral cochlear implant recipients : current provision, practice, and clinical experience in the UK. Cochlear Implants Int 17(3):132–145CrossRef
8.
Rossi-Katz J, Arehart KH (2011) Survey of audiological service provision to older adults with cochlear implants. Am J Audiol 20(2):84–89CrossRef
9.
Vaerenberg B, Smits C, De Ceulaer G et al (2014) Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. Sci World J 501738:1–12
10.
Siburt HW, Holmes AE (2015) Bimodal programming: a survey of current clinical practice. Am J Audiol 24(2):243–249CrossRef
11.
Browning LM, Nie Y, Rout A, Heiner M (2020) Audiologists’s preferences in programming cochlear implants: a preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int 21(3):1–13
12.
Battmer RD, Borel S, Brendel M et al (2014) Assessment of “Fitting to Outcomes Expert” FOXTM with new cochlear implant users in a multi-center study. Cochlear Implants Int 16(2):100–109CrossRef
13.
Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA et al (1995) Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the nucleus cochlear implant system. J Speech Hear Res 38(3):677–689CrossRef
14.
Botros A, Psarros C (2010) Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear Hear 31(3):367–379CrossRef
15.
Carvalho B, Hamerschmidt R, Wiemes G (2015) Intraoperative neural response telemetry and neural recovery function: a comparative study between adults and children. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 19(1):10–15PubMed
16.
Greisiger R, Shallop JK, Hol PK et al (2015) Cochlear implantees: Analysis of behavioral and objective measures for a clinical population of various age groups. Cochlear Implants Int 16(4):1–19CrossRef
17.
Stephan K, Welzl-Müller K (2000) Post-operative stapedius reflex tests with simultaneous loudness scaling in patients supplied with cochlear implants. Audiology 39(1):13–18CrossRef
18.
Philippon D, Bergeron FF, Ferron P et al (2010) Cochlear Implantation in postmeningitic deafness. OtolNeurotol 31(1):83–87
19.
20.
Mewes A, Hey M (2017) Einfluss der T Level auf das Sprachverstehen in Ruhe und im Störschall bei erwachsenen CI-Patienten. Conference Paper, 20 Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fu¨ r Audiologie
21.
Leone CA, Mosca F, Grassia R (2017) Temporal changes in impedance of implanted adults for various cochlear segments. ActaOtorhinolaryngol Ital 37:312–319CrossRef
22.
Chen JK, Chuang AY, Sprinzl GM et al (2013) Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. PLoS ONE 26(8):1–10
23.
Chen JK, Chuang AY, Sprinzl GM et al (2015) Safety and feasibility of initial frequency mapping within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. Actaotolaryngol 135(6):592–599
24.
Hagr A, GaradatAl-Momani SN et al (2015) Feasibility of one-day activation in cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 54(5):323–331CrossRef
25.
Sun CH, Chang CJ, Hsu CJ et al (2019) Feasibility of early activation after cochlear implantation. ClinOtolaryngol 44(6):1004–1010
26.
Busby PA, Arora K (2016) Effects of threshold adjustment on speech perception in nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 37(3):303–311CrossRef
27.
Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA et al (1999) Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22. Cochlear Implant J Speech Hear Res 42(4):814–828CrossRef
28.
Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW et al (2004) Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 25(4):375–387CrossRef
29.
Holden LK, Reeder RM, Firszt JB et al (2011) Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the advanced bionics cochlear implant system. Int J Audiol 50(4):255–269CrossRef
30.
Plesch J, Ernst BP, Strieth S et al (2019) A psychoacoustic application for the adjustment of electrical hearing thresholds in cochlear implant patients. PLoS ONE 14(10):1–17CrossRef
31.
Govaerts PJ, Vaerenberg B, De Ceulaer G et al (2010) Development of a software tool using deterministic logic for the optimization of cochlear implant processor programming. OtolNeurotol 31(6):908–918
32.
Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ, De Ceulaer G et al (2011) Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users. Int J Audiol 50(1):50–58CrossRef
33.
Bermejo I, Diez FJ, Govaerts PJ et al (2013) A probabilistic graphical model for tuning cochlear implants. In: Peek N, Marin Morales R, Peleg M (eds) Artificial intelligence in medicine. Springer, Berlin, pp 150–155CrossRef
34.
Wathour J, Teunen M, Pascoal D, Deggouj N, Govaerts PJ (2016) L’implant cochléaire avant l’âge d’un an : données quantitatives et qualitatives. Rééducation orthophonique no 268
35.
Wathour J, Govaerts PJ, Deggouj N (2019) From manual to artificial intelligence fitting: two cochlear implant case studies. Cochlear Implants Int 17:1–7
36.
Waltzman SB, Kelsall DC (2020) The use of artificial intelligence to program cochlear implant. OtolNeurotol 41(4):452–457
37.
Meeuws M, Pascoal D, Janssens de Varebeke S, De Ceulaer G, Govaerts PJ (2020) Cochlear implant telemedicine: remote fitting based on psychoacoustic self-tests and artificial intelligence. Cochlear Implants Int 13:1–9
38.
Lenarz T (2018) Cochlear implant: state of the art. GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology. Head Neck Surg 16:1–29
Metadata
Title
Variability of fitting parameters across cochlear implant centres
Authors
Justine Wathour
Paul J. Govaerts
Naïma Deggouj
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 12/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06572-w

Other articles of this Issue 12/2021

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2021 Go to the issue

Head and Neck

The application of venous nerve conduit trap in the immediate repair and reconstruction of facial nerve in parotid gland tumor: an attempt of a new technique

Laryngology

A simple qualitative scale for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux: high correlations with pH measurements and disease severity. The usefulness of the Warsaw Scale in LPR diagnostics compared to other diagnostic tools

Otology

The challenging diagnosis and follow-up of skull base osteomyelitis in clinical practice

Rhinology

How face masks influence the sinonasal quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic

Letter to the Editor

Sentinel node biopsy or elective neck dissection in early oral cancer: a point of contention

Otology

Factors contributing to clinically important health utility gains in cochlear implant recipients