Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic® Convex and Digisonic® SP devices after a 1-year follow-up

• Published in: Acta oto-laryngologica 2010-11, Vol.130 (11), p.1267-1273
• Main Authors: Lazard, Diane S., Bordure, Philippe, Lina-Granade, Geneviève, Magnan, Jacques, Meller, Renaud, Meyer, Bernard, Radafy, Emilien, Roux, Pierre-Eric, Gnansia, Dan, Péan, Vincent, Truy, Eric
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analysis of Variance; Biological and medical sciences; Cochlear Implants - classification; coding strategy; Deafness - physiopathology; Deafness - therapy; Ear, auditive nerve, cochleovestibular tract, facial nerve: diseases, semeiology; electrodes; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; longitudinal; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Non tumoral diseases; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Speech Perception; surgery; tonotopic mapping; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0001-6489; 1651-2251
• DOI: 10.3109/00016481003769972

Abstract Conclusion: Patients implanted with the Digisonic® SP device showed better identification scores than those implanted with the Convex device, with skills continuing to improve over a longer time period. Technological improvements were beneficial in terms of speech perception in quiet. Objective: To compare speech perception skills for post-lingually deaf patients implanted with a previous Neurelec device, the Digisonic® Convex, with those implanted with a more recent one, the Digisonic® SP, which provides more electrodes and a faster stimulation rate. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 100 implanted patients, 45 with the Digisonic® Convex implant and 55 with the Digisonic® SP. Speech perception (dissyllabic words and sentences, in open set) was evaluated until 1 year after implantation. Results: Patients fitted with the Digisonic® SP implant showed significantly better scores after 3, 6, and 12 months (mean scores: 53%, 62%, and 68% for words; 58%, 69%, and 75% for sentences) than those fitted with the Convex implant (34%, 42%, and 43% for words; 38%, 59%, and 51% for sentences). The improvement in speech perception after implantation for SP patients continued throughout the 12 months for words and 6 months for sentences, versus 6 months for words and 3 months for sentences for Convex patients.