优化单侧耳聋与非对称性听力损失患者的人工耳蜗编程：电诱发镫骨肌反射阈值与行为学方法的随机比较
Optimizing Cochlear Implant Programming in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: A Randomized Comparison of ESRT and Behavioral Methods.
文献信息
| PMID | 42985571 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Meredith A Holcomb |
| 作者单位 | Department of Otolaryngology University of Miami Miami Florida USA. |
| 期刊 | Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology |
| SCI 分区 | Q2 |
| IF | 2.1 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 比较电诱发镫骨肌反射阈值（ESRT）与行为学编程方法在单侧耳聋（SSD）和非对称性听力损失（AHL）人工耳蜗（CI）植入者中的结果。
方法： 纳入10名SSD（90%）或AHL（10%）参与者（平均年龄43.9岁；60%女性；60%非西班牙裔），进行前瞻性随机交叉研究。具有SSD/AHL且至少有3个月CI使用经验的参与者，按随机顺序分别采用同侧ESRT（Ipsi ESRT）、对侧ESRT（Contra ESRT）和行为学方法（Behav MCL）进行编程。结局指标包括言语感知（CNC词表、BKB-SIN句子）、每日CI设备使用时间以及听力相关CI生活质量（SSQ-12）。
结果： Contra ESRT编程在100%的活动电极上获得反应，而Ipsi ESRT为70%。大多数参与者（80%）偏好基于ESRT的程序，报告与Behav MCL编程相比听力和舒适度更好。不同编程方法之间的言语感知得分相似，但基于ESRT的程序显示出更可靠的上刺激水平，并且需要更少的调整。不同方法之间的言语得分相似，每日CI使用时间平均为6.5-8.5小时。
结论： 尽管不同方法之间的言语结果相似，但建议对SSD/AHL的CI植入者采用ESRT编程，特别是Contra ESRT，以优化患者偏好和编程可靠性。
证据等级： 2。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of electrically evoked stapedial reflex threshold (ESRT) and behavioral programming methods in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).
METHODS: Ten participants (mean age 43.9 years; 60% female; 60% non-Hispanic) with SSD (90%) or AHL (10%) were enrolled in a prospective randomized crossover study. Participants with SSD/AHL and at least 3 months of CI experience were programmed with ipsilateral ESRT (Ipsi ESRT), contralateral ESRT (Contra ESRT), and behavioral methods (Behav MCL) in randomized order. Outcome measures included speech perception (CNC words, BKB-SIN sentences), daily CI device use, and hearing-related CI quality of life (SSQ-12).
RESULTS: Contra ESRT programming yielded responses on 100% of active electrodes, compared to 70% for Ipsi ESRT. Most participants (80%) preferred ESRT-based programs, reporting better hearing and comfort compared to Behav MCL programming. Speech perception scores were similar across programming methods, but ESRT-based programs demonstrated more reliable upper stimulation levels and required fewer adjustments. Speech scores were similar across methods, and daily CI use averaged 6.5-8.5 h.
CONCLUSION: Despite similar speech outcomes across methods, ESRT programming, specifically Contra ESRT, is recommended for SSD/AHL CI recipients to optimize patient preference and programming reliability.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.