人工耳蜗随访中的远程检查：与传统听力学测量的探索性比较

文献信息

中文摘要

引言： 人工耳蜗随访需要定期评估和资源。远程检查（RC）能够远程评估助听听阈、噪声中言语感知以及阻抗场遥测（IFT）。本探索性研究调查了远程测量与传统测量之间的关系，并在方法学适当的情况下进行了数值和纵向比较。
方法： 这项前瞻性、单中心探索性研究纳入了12名植入Nucleus 7/8人工耳蜗的成人。在基线（T0）和平均4.83个月随访后（T1），参与者接受了自由场（FF）纯音测听、矩阵句子测试（MST）、助听听阈测试（ATT）、数字三联测试（DTT）和IFT；RC评估在监督下的临床条件下进行。分析包括探索性配对比较、相关性分析、纵向分析以及在适当情况下的线性混合效应模型。
结果： ATT阈值低于FF阈值（平均PTA差异：T0时为-7.78 dB；T1时为-9.23 dB），无方法×时间交互作用。MST和DTT在T0时呈正相关（Pearson r = 0.833，95% CI 0.497-0.952），而在T1时未观察到明确关联（r = 0.074，95% CI -0.583-0.672）。IFT差异较小（T0：+0.35 kΩ；T1：-0.06 kΩ），具有高相关性且无方法×时间交互作用。
讨论与结论： 在监督条件下，RC ATT与传统FF阈值显示出数值差异，而MST与DTT噪声中言语表现之间的关系在不同评估中仍不确定，远程与传统IFT测量之间的差异相对较小。解释受到测量范式不同和样本量小的限制。在能够确立更广泛的临床或分诊应用之前，需要更大规模的独立研究，包括居家评估。

英文摘要

Introduction: Cochlear implant follow-up requires periodic assessments and resources. Remote Check (RC) enables remote assessment of aided thresholds, speech perception in noise, and Impedance Field Telemetry (IFT). This exploratory study investigated relationships between remote and conventional measurements, including numerical and longitudinal comparisons where methodologically appropriate. Methods: This prospective, single-center exploratory study included 12 adults with Nucleus 7/8 cochlear implants. At baseline (T0) and after a mean 4.83-month follow-up (T1), participants underwent free-field (FF) pure-tone audiometry, Matrix Sentence Test (MST), Aided Threshold Test (ATT), Digit Triplet Test (DTT), and IFT; RC assessments were performed under supervised clinical conditions. Analyses included exploratory paired comparisons, correlations, longitudinal analyses, and linear mixed-effects models where appropriate. Results: ATT thresholds were lower than FF thresholds (mean PTA differences: -7.78 dB at T0; -9.23 dB at T1), with no Method × Time interaction. MST and DTT showed a positive association at T0 (Pearson r = 0.833, 95% CI 0.497-0.952), whereas no clear association was observed at T1 (r = 0.074, 95% CI -0.583-0.672). IFT differences were small (T0: +0.35 kΩ; T1: -0.06 kΩ), with high correlations and no Method × Time interaction. Discussion and Conclusions: Under supervised conditions, RC ATT showed numerical differences from conventional FF thresholds, while the relationship between MST and DTT speech-in-noise performance remained uncertain across assessments and remote and conventional IFT measurements showed comparatively small differences. Interpretation is limited by differing measurement paradigms and the small sample. Larger independent studies, including home-based assessments, are required before broader clinical or triage applications can be established.