成年人工耳蜗使用者耳后处理器与耳外处理器的功能优势比较。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Otology & Neurotology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000004430
Craig D Salvador, Zachary Sinacori, Elizabeth L Camposeo, Ted A Meyer, Theodore R McRackan
{"title":"成年人工耳蜗使用者耳后处理器与耳外处理器的功能优势比较。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:人工耳蜗(CI)设备配备了两种外部处理器样式-耳后(BTE)或耳外(OTE)选项。虽然以前的研究主要集中在处理器类型之间的语音识别能力,但当前的研究旨在研究处理器类型之间潜在的现实世界功能差异。研究设计:回顾性病例对照,1:2比例匹配。单位:第三耳鼻喉科转诊中心。患者:双侧感音神经性听力损失患者。干预:人工耳蜗植入。主要观察指标:人工耳蜗生活质量35概况(CIQOL-35 Profile)、CNC单词(CNCw)和AzBio句子(quiet)识别。结果:共纳入36例患者(n = 12 OTE和n = 24 BTE使用者)。总体研究人群显示,人工耳蜗植入后CNCw (d = 1.9[1.3, 2.4])、安静时AzBio句子(d = 2.1[1.5, 2.6])和CIQOL-35域(d范围:0.5-0.9)的中大型效应量有所改善。组间分析表明,BTE患者在CNCw (d = 0.4[-0.3, 1.1])和AzBio安静(d = 0.5[-0.2, 1.2])方面的表现优于OTE患者。然而,基于CIQOL域和全局评分(d范围:0.04-0.2)的处理器类型之间存在最小差异。结论:BTE使用者的语音识别能力可能优于OTE使用者。然而,CIQOL域和全局分数在两种处理器类型之间是可比较的。需要前瞻性随机对照试验来解决回顾性分析的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Functional Benefits of Behind-the-Ear Processors Compared With Off-the-Ear Processors in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信