Findings may inform candidacy decisions and device-selection discussions for paediatric patients with residual hearing, but clinical practice changes should await review of full outcome data and replication in larger cohorts.
Optimising stimulation mode selection for children with residual hearing is a high-stakes, under-evidenced decision area that directly affects long-term speech and hearing outcomes in a vulnerable population.
- 01Compares acoustic, electroacoustic (EAS), and electric-only stimulation in paediatric CI candidates with residual hearing.
- 02Published in Cochlear Implants International (2026), focusing on a clinically nuanced candidacy decision.
- 03Residual low-frequency hearing in children creates complex trade-offs between hearing preservation and implant benefit.
- 04The guitar analogy ('acoustic vs electric') frames stimulation mode choice as context-dependent rather than hierarchical.
- 05Relevant to audiologists, surgeons, and CI teams managing children at the acoustic-electric boundary.
Acoustic, electroacoustic, and electric stimulation represent meaningfully distinct options for paediatric CI candidates with residual hearing.
studypartially supportedChoice of stimulation mode should be individualised based on the child's residual hearing profile.
studyunclear- PMID
- 42397721
- DOI
- 10.1080/14670100.2026.2641337.
- Journal
- Cochlear Implants International
- Publication type
- research_article
- Evidence level
- 4
- Population
- Paediatric cochlear implant candidates with residual hearing
- Intervention
- Acoustic, electroacoustic, and electric stimulation modalities in paediatric CI candidates
- Comparator
- Acoustic stimulation (hearing aid alone) vs. electroacoustic stimulation vs. electric-only cochlear implant
Primary outcomes
Comparison of stimulation mode outcomes in paediatric CI candidates with residual hearing; Clinical guidance for stimulation mode selection