Comparison of Speech Recognition and Hearing Preservation Outcomes Between the Mid-Scala and Lateral Wall Electrode Arrays

Objective To assess speech recognition and hearing preservation (HP) outcomes with the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ electrodes.Study Design Retrospective cohort.Setting Tertiary referral center.Patients A total of 237 adult patients implanted between 2013 and 2020 (Mid-Scala, n = 136; SlimJ, n = 101).Main Outcome Measures Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) and AzBio (Arizona Biomedical) scores at 6 and 12 months; postoperative HP, defined as low-frequency pure-tone average <= 80 dB HL; scalar position.Results Mean CNC scores did not significantly differ between Mid-Scala and SlimJ recipients at 6 (45.8% versus 46.0%, p = 0.962) and 12 (51.9% versus 48.8%, p = 0.363) months. Similarly, mean AzBio in quiet scores were equivalent for both groups at 6 (55.1% versus 59.2%, p = 0.334) and 12 (60.6% versus 62.3%, p = 0.684) months. HP rates were significantly higher with the SlimJ (48.4%) than the Mid-Scala (30.8%; p = 0.033). Scalar translocations were 34.8 and 16.1% for the Mid-Scala and SlimJ groups, respectively (p = 0.019). Ears with postoperative HP had significantly fewer scalar translocations (16.7% versus 37.2%, p = 0.048), and postoperative HP was associated with higher AzBio in noise scores at the most recent follow-up interval (38.7% versus 25.1%, p = 0.042). CNC, AzBio in quiet and noise, low-frequency pure-tone average shifts, and PTA at 6 and 12 months were not significantly different between patients with scala tympani insertions of the SlimJ versus the Mid-Scala (p > 0.05).Conclusions Compared with the Mid-Scala, the lateral wall electrode has superior HP rates and fewer scalar translocations, whereas speech recognition scores are equivalent between both electrode arrays. These findings can help providers with electrode selection and patient counseling.