• Eman A Hajr and Fida A Almuhawas.
• Otolaryngology Department, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail. memy_hujar@yahoo.com.
• Saudi Med J. 2020 Apr 1; 41 (4): 426-430.

ObjectivesTo compare the clinical efficiency of the CR220 intraoperative remote assistant device used by the surgical team with that of the custom sound (CS) system used by an audiologist.MethodsThis was a prospective clinical study in a quaternary care center (King Abdullah Ear Specialist Centre) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between October 2018 and March 2019. We included adult and pediatric patients who underwent cochlear implant (CI) surgeries. For every participant, the intraoperative CI testing was performed via both the aforementioned methods. The time taken to complete the measurements with both approaches, including the time required by the audiologist to reach the operating room (OR) and to complete the test, was recorded.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the number of responding electrodes between the 2 approaches. For the 25 participants, the time taken for the measurements was 566 minutes with the CS and 173 with the CR220 systems. This significant difference indicates that considerable time can be saved.ConclusionThe CR220 enables intraoperative CI electrode tests and auto-NRT measurements. Its ergonomics and ease-of-use help the surgical team conduct the tests without an audiologist in the OR, resulting in the efficient use of clinical resources. Further, the results generated were consistent with those of the CS system.

23 keywords...

hide…