Fernández-Córdoba AC, Gutiérrez-Farfán IS, Chamlati-Aguirre LE, Alfaro-Rodríguez A, Durand-Rivera A

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 247-251
PDF size: 156.03 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Programming the cochlear implant (CI) has always been a challenge for all medical specialists in audiology, especially in pediatric patients without language secondary profound hearing loss. For this reason are searched alternatives to achieve normal hearing with the implant during programming in the shortest time possible. Objective. To analyze whether through modification threshold T we get faster audiological threshold, describe the differences in time found in patients with sensorineural hearing loss IC users with thresholds T at 10% modified, and T thresholds modified according to clinical responses after obtaining audiological threshold within normal parameters and report the speech coding strategies commonly used at the start of the program and to reach above the hearing threshold to language area. Material and methods. We performed an observational, cross-sectional, descriptive, comparative study in which we evaluated a total of 31 patients with sensorineural hearing loss, under six years, and both sexes, of cochlear implant users of Advanced Bionics, which were divided in two groups: Group I: 15 patients with modification of thresholds T to 10%, following the manufacturer’s recommendations (unmodified) and Group II: 16 patients with T threshold modification according to clinical response cochlear (modified). Were reported strategies most used speech coding in both groups at the start of the program and to reach the threshold audiological within normal parameters. Results. In patients in group I (not modified) were 256 days on average to reach threshold audiological and group II (modified) was 335.6 days. Without statistic significant p = 0.197, with an average of 295.8 days for both groups and the speech coding strategy more used was the Hi-Res P with Fidelity 120, modifying both groups only one patient from power up obtaining threshold. Conclusions. It was established that thresholds T patient’s subjective threshold as compared to T of 10% automatically obtained by SoundWave is not necessary since there are no statistically significant differences in relation to time to take patients implanted normal hearing threshold. The speech coding strategies more widely used and accepted by the patient was the Hi-Res P with Fidelity 120.

REFERENCES

1. Manriquez M, Huarte A. Implantes cocleares. Cap. 1. España: Ed. Masson; 2003.

2. Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias “Dr. Ismael Cosío Villegas” (INER). Procedimiento Técnico Administrativo de Implantes Cocleares. 2011. Dispnible en: http:// www iner.salud.gob.mx/descargas/manuales/lineamientos/dirmedica/ implantescocleares.pdf

3. Chong-Sun K, Seung Ha O, Sun C. Management of Complications in cochlear implantation. Acta otolaringologica 2008; 128: 408-14.

4. Balkany T, Hodges A, Miyamoto R, Gibbin K, Odabasi O. Cochlear implants in children. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 2001; 34(2): 455-65.

5. Tambyraja R, Gutman M, Megerian C. Cochlear Implant Complications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery 2005; 131, 245-50.

6. Advanced Bionics Corporation. Converting Patients from Conventional Strategies to HiResolution™ Sound Processing. Junio 2003.

7. Advanced Bionics Corporation. HiRes Fidelity 120® Sound Processing. Implementing Active Current Steering for Increased Spectral Resolution in Harmony® HiResolution® Bionic Ear Users. Marzo 2009.

8. Advanced Bionics Corporation. New Methodology for Fitting Cochlear Implants. Junio 2003.

9. Holden L, Reedera R, Firszta J, Finley C. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the advanced bionics cochlear implant system. Int J Audiol 2011; 50(4): 255-69.

10. Giordano C, Albera R, Beatrice F. Audiometría clínica. Torino: Ed. Minerva Medica; 2003.

11. Holden L, Skinner M, Fourakis M, Holden T. Effect of increased IDR in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 778-91.

12. Spahr A, Dorman M. Effects of minimum stimulation setting for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear Hear 2005; (26): 2S-6S.