Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
COMPARING BEHIND-THE-EAR AND SINGLE-UNIT COCHLEAR IMPLANT AUDIO PROCESSORS IN 83 NEWLY IMPLANTED SUBJECTS
1
Department of Otolaryngology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France., France
2
Department of Otolaryngology and Skull Base Surgery, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France., France
3
Department of Audiology and Otorhinolaryngology
IMPACT Team, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France.
Centre for Research in Neuroscience in Lyon, France
4
Department of Otology, Hearing Implants and Skull Base Surgery, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France., France
5
Cochlear Implantation Fitting Centre, Rothschild Hospital, Paris, France., France
6
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, France., France
7
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France., France
8
Department of Otology and Neurotology, University of Lille, Lille, France., France
9
Research, MED-EL France, France
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2020-05-20
Final revision date: 2020-07-27
Acceptance date: 2020-10-16
Publication date: 2020-12-31
J Hear Sci 2020;10(4):33-39
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The RONDO is a single-unit device that merges both the OPUS 2 behind-the-ear audio processor and the coil into a single housing. The study aims to assess the perceived auditory abilities and opinions of newly implanted subjects using the OPUS 2 and/or the RONDO in everyday life.
Material and methods:
We studied 83 newly implanted subjects who received the RONDO and OPUS 2 and were free to use whichever processor they preferred or a combination of the two. User satisfaction was evaluated after at least 4 weeks of use (after the first fitting) using the device-specific RONDO questionnaire.
Results:
Results showed that 77% of subjects were satisfied with the RONDO in general, and 92% of subjects either preferred to use the RONDO or liked both audio processors equally while wearing eyeglasses. Overall, 91% of subjects would recommend the RONDO to other CI users. RONDO was significantly (p<0.05) preferred at home, for cultural events, or when wearing glasses; OPUS 2 was preferred for sport or while wearing a cap.
Conclusions:
The RONDO was associated with a high degree of user satisfaction among newly implanted CI users and offers CI users further options in terms of wearer comfort and cosmetic appearance. Thus, CI users can, if they wish, switch from the OPUS 2 to the RONDO without affecting their hearing ability or speech understanding.
The RONDO is a single-unit device that merges both the OPUS 2 behind-the-ear audio processor and the coil into a single housing. The study aims to assess the perceived auditory abilities and opinions of newly implanted subjects using the OPUS 2 and/or the RONDO in everyday life.
Material and methods:
We studied 83 newly implanted subjects who received the RONDO and OPUS 2 and were free to use whichever processor they preferred or a combination of the two. User satisfaction was evaluated after at least 4 weeks of use (after the first fitting) using the device-specific RONDO questionnaire.
Results:
Results showed that 77% of subjects were satisfied with the RONDO in general, and 92% of subjects either preferred to use the RONDO or liked both audio processors equally while wearing eyeglasses. Overall, 91% of subjects would recommend the RONDO to other CI users. RONDO was significantly (p<0.05) preferred at home, for cultural events, or when wearing glasses; OPUS 2 was preferred for sport or while wearing a cap.
Conclusions:
The RONDO was associated with a high degree of user satisfaction among newly implanted CI users and offers CI users further options in terms of wearer comfort and cosmetic appearance. Thus, CI users can, if they wish, switch from the OPUS 2 to the RONDO without affecting their hearing ability or speech understanding.
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Brown K, Balkany T. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2007; 15(5): 315-8.
2.
Sorkin DL. Access to cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int, 2013; 14(Suppl 1): S1.
3.
Hempel J, Simon F, Müller J. Extended applications for cochlear implantation. Adv Otohinolaryngol, 2018; 81: 74-80.
4.
Dillon M, Buss E, Rooth M, King E, Deres E, Buchman C, et al. Effect of cochlear implantation on quality of life in adults with unilateral hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol, 2017; 22(4-5): 259-71.
5.
Dritsakis G, van Besouw RM, O’Meara A. Impact of music on the quality of life of cochlear implant users: a focus group study. Cochlear Implants Int, 2017; 18(4): 207-15.
6.
Wimmer W, Cavarsaccio M, Kompis M. Speech intelligibility in noise with a single-unit cochlear implant audio processor. Otol Neurotol, 2015; 36: 1197-202.
7.
Stenfelt S. Bilateral fitting of BAHAs and BAHA fitted in unilateral deaf persons: acoustical aspects. Int J Audiol, 2005; 44: 178-89.
8.
Pfiffner F, Caversaccio M, Kompis M. Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol, 2011; 32: 728-35.
9.
Seebens Y, Diller G. Improvements in speech perception after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 audio processor. ORL, 2012; 74: 6-11.
10.
Kompis M, Senn P, Schmid C, von Gunten B, Vischer M, Seifert E, Häusler R, Caversaccio M. Improvement in speech understanding and user satisfaction after upgrading from the Medel Tempo+ to the OPUS2 speech processor. Cochlear Implant Int, 2010; 11(Suppl 1): 437-41.
11.
Lorens A, Zgoda M, Skarzynski H. Speech perception and subjective benefit in paediatric C40+ users after the upgrade to Fine Structure Processing (FSP). Cochlear Implants Int, 2010; 11(Suppl 1): 444-8.
12.
Mertens G, Hofkens A, Kleine Punte A, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor. Otol Neurotol, 2015; 36: 51-60.
13.
Spiric S, Travar D, Spiric P, Spremo S, Gnjatic M. Benefits of cochlear implant speech processor upgrade. Med J, 2016; 22(1): 27-9.
14.
Dazert S, Thomas J, Büchner A, Müller J, Hempel J, Löwenheim H, et al. Off the ear with no loss in speech understanding: comparing the RONDO and the OPUS 2 cochlear implant audio processors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2017; 274(3): 1391-5.
15.
Bayri M, Çiprut A. The effects of behind-the-ear and off-theear sound processors on speech understanding performance in cochlear implant users. Auris Nasus Larynx, 2020 Jun 23; S0385-8146(20)30126-7.
16.
Wezarg T, Voss B, Hassepass F, Beck R, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Arndt S. Speech perception in quiet and noise with an off the ear CI processor enabling adaptive microphone directionality. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39: 240-9.
17.
Lee J, Lee J, Heo H, Choi C, Choi S, Lee K. Speech recognition in real-life background noise by young and middle-aged adults with normal hearing. J Audiol Otol, 2015; 19(1): 39-44. 18. Bräcker T, Hellmiss S, Batsoulis C, Petzold T, Gabel L, Möltner A, et al. Introducing real-life listening features into the clinical test environment: Part II: Measuring the hearing performance and evaluating the listening effort of individuals with a hearing implant. Cochlear Implants Int, 2019; 20(4): 165-75.
18.
Walden B, Grant K, Cord M. Effects of amplification and speech reading on consonant recognition by persons with impaired hearing. Ear Hear, 2001; 22: 333-41.
19.
Mauger SJ, Jones M, Net E, Del Dot J. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. Int J Audiol, 2017; 56(4): 267-76.
20.
Távora-Vieira D, Miller S. The benefits of using RONDO and an in-the-ear hearing aid in patients using a combined electricacoustic system. Adv Oto-Rhino-Laryngol, 2015; 2015: 941230.
21.
Honeder C, Liepins R, Arnoldner C, Sinkovec H, Kaider A, Vyskocil E, et al. Fixed and adaptive beamforming improves speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients equipped with the MED-EL SONNET audio processor. PLoS One, 2018; 13(1): e0190718.
22.
Wimmer W, Stefan W, Caversaccio M, Kompis M. Speech intelligibility in noise with a pinna effect imitating cochlear implant processor. Otol Neurotol, 2016; 37(1): 19-23.
23.
Hagen R, Radeloff A, Stark T, Anderson I, Nopp P, Aschbacher E, Möltner A, Khajehnouri Y, Rak K. Microphone directionality and wind noise reduction enhance speech perception in users of the MED-EL SONNET audio processor. Cochlear Implants Int, 2020; 21(1): 53-65.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
