We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparable Electrode Impedance and Speech Perception at 12 Months after Cochlear Implantation Using Round Window versus Cochleostomy: An Analysis of 40 Patients.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether cochlear implantation using the round window (RW) route versus cochleostomy achieves comparable electrode impedance and hearing results.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 40 patients receiving a cochlear implant (REZ-1): 20 using the RW approach and the remaining 20 using cochleostomy. Electrode impedance and tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception were measured during and after the implantation.
RESULTS: Electrode impedance did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at any time points [F(1, 38) = 1.84; p = 0.184]: 1.87, 5.16, 6.47 and 6.70 kΩ in the RW group versus 2.86, 5.33, 6.92 and 8.16 kΩ in the cochleostomy group at 0, 1, 3 and 12 months, respectively. There was no significant difference between the RW and cochleostomy groups for tone (77.50 vs. 80.50%; p = 0.472), vowel (77.70 vs. 78.65%; p = 0.760), consonant (75.50 vs. 78.25%; p = 0.443), disyllable (78.60 vs. 81.50%; p = 0.317) and sentence (50.90 vs. 52.50%; p = 0.684) perception at 12 months.
CONCLUSION: The RW approach is comparable to cochleostomy in electrode placement as reflected by impedance and function as reflected by tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 40 patients receiving a cochlear implant (REZ-1): 20 using the RW approach and the remaining 20 using cochleostomy. Electrode impedance and tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception were measured during and after the implantation.
RESULTS: Electrode impedance did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at any time points [F(1, 38) = 1.84; p = 0.184]: 1.87, 5.16, 6.47 and 6.70 kΩ in the RW group versus 2.86, 5.33, 6.92 and 8.16 kΩ in the cochleostomy group at 0, 1, 3 and 12 months, respectively. There was no significant difference between the RW and cochleostomy groups for tone (77.50 vs. 80.50%; p = 0.472), vowel (77.70 vs. 78.65%; p = 0.760), consonant (75.50 vs. 78.25%; p = 0.443), disyllable (78.60 vs. 81.50%; p = 0.317) and sentence (50.90 vs. 52.50%; p = 0.684) perception at 12 months.
CONCLUSION: The RW approach is comparable to cochleostomy in electrode placement as reflected by impedance and function as reflected by tone, vowel, consonant, disyllable and sentence perception.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app