Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant

Fraysse, Bernard, Macías, Ángel Ramos, Sterkers, Olivier, Burdo, Sandro, Ramsden, Richard, Deguine, Olivier, Klenzner, Thomas, Lenarz, Thomas, Rodriguez, Manuel Manrique, Von Wallenberg, Ernst, James, Chris·2006·Otology & Neurotology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the conservation of residual hearing in recipients of the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant (CI) and the benefits of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: CI clinics in Western Europe. PATIENTS: Adult candidates for conventional cochlear implantation with a minimum preoperative word recognition score of 10% in the ear to be implanted. INTERVENTION: "Soft-surgery" protocol, including a 1- to 1.2-mm anterior and inferior cochleostomy hole with the electrode array, inserted 17 mm using the "advance-off-stylet" technique. Patients with postoperative pure-tone hearing threshold levels (HTLs) of 80 dB hearing loss or less at 125 and 250 Hz and 90 dB hearing loss or less at 500 Hz were refitted with an in-the-ear hearing aid for combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic (El-Ac) stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A questionnaire to collect information regarding surgery. Pure-tone HTLs measured at intervals. Word recognition tested in quiet and sentence recognition tested in noise at 10 and 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). HEARING CONSERVATION RESULTS: HTL data were available for 27 patients. HTLs were conserved within 20 dB of preoperative levels for 33, 26, and 19% of patients for 125, 250, and 500 Hz, respectively. However, the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly followed in only 12 of 27 patients. For these 12 patients, hearing thresholds were conserved within 20 dB for 50, 50, and 33% of patients. Median threshold increases were 40 dB (range, 250-500 Hz) for the whole group and 23 dB for the strict surgery group. Ten patients retained sufficient HTLs to enter the El-Ac user group. SPEECH RECOGNITION RESULTS: Group mean recognition scores for nine El-Ac users for words presented at 65 dB sound pressure level were 45% for CI alone and 55% for CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in noise at 5 dB SNR, mean word scores were 46% CI alone and 56% CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.01, paired t). CONCLUSION: Hearing was conserved for conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly adhered. Combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation provided considerable benefits for speech recognition in noise, equivalent to between 3 and 5 dB SNR, compared with CI alone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.mao.0000226289.04048.0f

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 237

Metadata

Authors
Fraysse, B., Macías, Á. R., Sterkers, O., Burdo, S., Ramsden, R., Deguine, O., Klenzner, T., Lenarz, T., Rodriguez, M. M., Von Wallenberg, E., & James, C.
Venue
Otology & Neurotology
Published
2006-08
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
624-633
ISSN
1531-7129 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118922182
Cited by
237
References
0
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.mao.0000226289.04048.0f
The paper
Fraysse, B., Macías, Á. R., Sterkers, O., Burdo, S., Ramsden, R., Deguine, O., Klenzner, T., Lenarz, T., Rodriguez, M. M., Von Wallenberg, E., & James, C. (2006). Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant. Otology & Neurotology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000226289.04048.0f

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.