Craig D Salvador, Zachary Sinacori, Elizabeth L Camposeo, Ted A Meyer, Theodore R McRackan
{"title":"Functional Benefits of Behind-the-Ear Processors Compared With Off-the-Ear Processors in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.","authors":"Craig D Salvador, Zachary Sinacori, Elizabeth L Camposeo, Ted A Meyer, Theodore R McRackan","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cochlear implant (CI) devices are fitted with two external processor styles-a behind-the-ear (BTE) or an off-the-ear (OTE) option. Although previous research has predominantly focused on speech recognition abilities between processor styles, the current study aims to examine the potential real-world functional differences between processor types.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective case-control, matched at a 1:2 ratio.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary Otolaryngology Referral Center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Cochlear implantation.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Cochlear Implant Quality of Life 35 Profile (CIQOL-35 Profile), and CNC word (CNCw) and AzBio sentence (quiet) recognition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 patients were included (n = 12 OTE and n = 24 BTE users). The overall study population demonstrated improvements in CNCw ( d = 1.9 [1.3, 2.4]), AzBio sentences in quiet ( d = 2.1 [1.5, 2.6]), and medium-to-large effect sizes for domains of the CIQOL-35 ( d range: 0.5-0.9) after cochlear implantation. Between-group analysis demonstrated that BTE users performed better in CNCw ( d = 0.4 [-0.3, 1.1]) and AzBio quiet ( d = 0.5 [-0.2, 1.2]) than their OTE counterparts. However, there were minimal differences identified between processor types based on CIQOL domain and global scores ( d range: 0.04-0.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BTE users may have a better speech recognition ability than their OTE counterparts. However, CIQOL domain and global scores are comparable between the two processor types. A prospective, randomized controlled trial will be needed to address the limitations of a retrospective analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":"358-363"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004430","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Cochlear implant (CI) devices are fitted with two external processor styles-a behind-the-ear (BTE) or an off-the-ear (OTE) option. Although previous research has predominantly focused on speech recognition abilities between processor styles, the current study aims to examine the potential real-world functional differences between processor types.
Study design: Retrospective case-control, matched at a 1:2 ratio.
Setting: Tertiary Otolaryngology Referral Center.
Patients: Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
Intervention: Cochlear implantation.
Main outcome measures: Cochlear Implant Quality of Life 35 Profile (CIQOL-35 Profile), and CNC word (CNCw) and AzBio sentence (quiet) recognition.
Results: A total of 36 patients were included (n = 12 OTE and n = 24 BTE users). The overall study population demonstrated improvements in CNCw ( d = 1.9 [1.3, 2.4]), AzBio sentences in quiet ( d = 2.1 [1.5, 2.6]), and medium-to-large effect sizes for domains of the CIQOL-35 ( d range: 0.5-0.9) after cochlear implantation. Between-group analysis demonstrated that BTE users performed better in CNCw ( d = 0.4 [-0.3, 1.1]) and AzBio quiet ( d = 0.5 [-0.2, 1.2]) than their OTE counterparts. However, there were minimal differences identified between processor types based on CIQOL domain and global scores ( d range: 0.04-0.2).
Conclusion: BTE users may have a better speech recognition ability than their OTE counterparts. However, CIQOL domain and global scores are comparable between the two processor types. A prospective, randomized controlled trial will be needed to address the limitations of a retrospective analysis.
期刊介绍:
Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.