Objective: As a follow-up to the studies by Vaerenberg et al. (Sci World J 501738:1-12, 2014) and Browning et al. (Cochlear Implant Int 21(3):1-13, 2020), who used questionnaires, we determined whether there are between-centre variations in the fitting of cochlear implants by analysing the methodology, fitting parameters and hearing results of patients from four centres with real data. The purpose of this study is to highlight the lack of streamlined mapping guides and outcome measures with respect to cochlear implant (CI) fittings.
Methods: A retrospective study with ninety-seven post-lingual adults with a nucleus cochlear implant placed between 2003 and 2013 was included to ensure at least 5 years of follow-up. The studied data were as follows: the methodology, including the fitter's professional background, the method of activation, the sequence of fitting sessions, the objectives measures and hearing outcomes; and the fitting parameters, including the speech processors, programming strategy, stimulation mode, T and C levels, T-SPL and C-SPL, maxima, pulse width, loudness growth and hearing results.
Results: This investigation highlights some common practices across professionals and CI centres: the activation of a CI is behavioural; impedances are systematically measured at each fitting; and some parameters are rarely modified. However, there are also differences, either between centres, such as the sequences of fitting sessions (p < 0.05) or their approach to spectral bands (p < 0.05), or even within centres, such as the policy regarding T and C levels at high frequencies compared to those at low and mid-frequencies.
Conclusion: There are important variations between and within centres that reflect a lack of CI-related policies and outcome measures in the fitting of CI.
Clinical trials registry: NCT03700268.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.