Objectives: To analyse the speech perception performance of 53 cochlear implant recipients with otosclerosis and to evaluate which factors influenced patient performance in this group. The factors included disease-related data such as demographics, pre-operative audiological characteristics, the results of CT scanning and device-related factors. Methods: Data were reviewed on 53 patients with otosclerosis from 4 cochlear implant centres in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Comparison of demographics, pre-operative CT scans and audiological data revealed that the patients from the 4 different centres could be considered as one group. Speech perception scores had been obtained with the English AB monosyllable tests and Dutch NVA monosyllable tests. Based on the speech perception scores, the patients were classified as poor or good performers. The characteristics of these subgroups were compared. Results: There was wide variability in the speech perception results. Similar patterns were seen in the phoneme scores and BKB sentence scores between the poor and good performers. The two groups did not differ in age at onset of hearing loss, duration of hearing loss, progression, age at onset of deafness, or duration of deafness. Conclusions: The clinical presentation of the otosclerosis (rapid or slow progression) did not influence speech perception. Better performance was related to less severe signs of otosclerosis on CT scan, full insertion of the electrode array, little or no facial nerve stimulation and little or no need to switch off electrodes.

Keywords:
Cochlear implantation, Otosclerosis, Computed tomography, Surgery, Facial nerve stimulation, Speech perception performance
1.
Battmer RD, Gupta SP, Allum-Mecklenburg DJ, et al: Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166(suppl):185–187.
2.
Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J: The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979;13:108–112.
3.
Bigelow DC, Kay DJ, Rafter KO, et al: Facial nerve stimulation from cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1998;19:163–169.
4.
Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, et al: Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996;1:293–306.
5.
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, et al: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:342–348.
6.
Boothroyd A: Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am 1968;43:362–367.
7.
Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF: Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology 1995;34:260–284.
8.
Browning GG, Gatehouse S: Sensorineural hearing loss in stapedial otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984;93:13–16.
9.
Donaldson JA, Snyder JM: Otosclerosis; in Cummings CW, Frederickson JM, Harker LA, Krause CJ, Schuller DE (eds): Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. St Louis, Mosby-Yearbook, 1992, pp 2997–3016.
10.
Dowell RC, Mecklenburg DJ, Clark GM: Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;112:1054–1059.
11.
Frijns JH, Klop WM, Bonnet RM, et al: Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:138–142.
12.
Guneri EA, Ada E, Ceryan K, et al: High-resolution computed tomographic evaluation of the cochlear capsule in otosclerosis: relationship between densitometry and sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:659–664.
13.
Hamzavi J, Baumgartner WD, Pok SM, et al: Variables affecting speech perception in postlingually deaf adults following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:493–498.
14.
Hartrampf R, Dahm MC, Battmer RD, et al: Insertion depth of the Nucleus electrode array and relative performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166(suppl):277–280.
15.
Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, et al: Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:509–512.
16.
Linthicum FH Jr: Histopathology of otosclerosis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1993;26:335–352.
17.
Linthicum FH Jr, Filipo R, Brody S: Sensorineural hearing loss due to cochlear otospongiosis: theoretical considerations of etiology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1975;84:544–551.
18.
Mafee MF, Henrikson GC, Deitch RL, et al: Use of CT in stapedial otosclerosis. Radiology 1985a;156:709–714.
19.
Mafee MF, Valvassori GE, Deitch RL, et al: Use of CT in the evaluation of cochlear otosclerosis. Radiology 1985b;156:703–708.
20.
Mens LH, Oostendorp T, van den Broek P: Cochlear implant generated surface potentials: current spread and side effects. Ear Hear 1994;15:339–345.
21.
Michael M: Practical Aspects of Audiology: Speech Audiometry. London, Whurr, 1987.
22.
Nadol JB Jr, Young YS, Glynn RJ: Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:411–416.
23.
Oh SH, Kim CS, Kang EJ, et al: Speech perception after cochlear implantation over a 4-year time period. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:148–153.
24.
Ramsay HA, Linthicum FH Jr: Mixed hearing loss in otosclerosis: indication for long-term follow-up. Am J Otol 1994;15:536–539.
25.
Ramsden R, Bance M, Giles E, et al: Cochlear implantation in otosclerosis: a unique positioning and programming problem. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:262–265.
26.
Rotteveel LJ, Proops DW, Ramsden RT, et al: Cochlear implantation in 53 patients with otosclerosis: demographics, computed tomographic scanning, surgery, and complications. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:943–952.
27.
Rotteveel LJ, Snik AF, Vermeulen AM, et al: Three-year follow-up of children with postmeningitic deafness and partial cochlear implant insertion. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:242–248.
28.
Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, et al: Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;20:445–452.
29.
Shea JJ III, Domico EH, Orchik DJ: Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Laryngoscope 1990;100:223–226.
30.
Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM: Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166 (suppl):194–196.
31.
Skinner MW: Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;191(suppl):4–13.
32.
Valimaa TT, Sorri MJ, Lopponen HJ: Speech perception and functional benefit after multichannel cochlear implantation. Scand Audiol Suppl 2001;52:45–47.
33.
Weber BP, Lenarz T, Battmer RD, et al: Otosclerosis and facial nerve stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166(suppl):445–447.
34.
Woolford TJ, Roberts GR, Hartley C, et al: Etiology of hearing loss and cochlear computed tomography: findings in preimplant assessment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166(suppl):201–206.
35.
Youssef O, Rosen A, Chandrasekhar S, et al: Cochlear otosclerosis: the current understanding. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998;107:1076–1079.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.