Evaluation of a Revised Indication for Determining Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy

被引:65
|
作者
Sladen, Douglas P. [1 ]
Gifford, Rene H. [2 ]
Haynes, David [3 ]
Kelsall, David [4 ]
Benson, Aaron [5 ]
Lewis, Kristen [6 ]
Zwolan, Teresa [7 ]
Fu, Qian-Jie [8 ]
Gantz, Bruce [9 ]
Gilden, Jan [10 ]
Westerberg, Brian [11 ]
Gustin, Cindy [12 ]
O'Neil, Lori
Driscoll, Colin L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Hearing & Speech Sci, 221 Kirkland Hall, Nashville, TN 37235 USA
[3] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Otolaryngol, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[4] Rocky Mt Ear Ctr, Englewood, CO USA
[5] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Dept Otolaryngol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[6] Midwest Ear Inst, Kansas City, MO USA
[7] Univ Michigan, Cochlear Implant Program, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[8] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Head & Neck Surg, Los Angeles, CA USA
[9] Univ Iowa, Dept Otolaryngol, Iowa City, IA USA
[10] Houston Ear Res Fdn, Houston, TX USA
[11] Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[12] Vancouver Childrens Hosp, Dept Otolaryngol, Vancouver, BC, Canada
来源
LARYNGOSCOPE | 2017年 / 127卷 / 10期
关键词
Cochlear implant; speech recognition; quality of life; revised indications; word recognition; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; SPEECH RECOGNITION; BIMODAL HEARING; ACOUSTIC HEARING; RECIPIENTS; BENEFIT; OLDER; PERCEPTION; LISTENERS; COGNITION;
D O I
10.1002/lary.26513
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long-term benefit for cochlear implantation. Study Design: Prospective multi-center single-subject design. Methods: A total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre-and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index. Results: Performance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12-month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation. Conclusion: Results of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long-term postoperative speech recognition performance.
引用
收藏
页码:2368 / 2374
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Can training extend current guidelines for cochlear implant candidacy?
    Amal Isaiah
    Douglas E.H.Hartley
    Neural Regeneration Research, 2015, 10 (05) : 718 - 720
  • [42] Is Hard Failure Still a Common Indication for Revision Surgery in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients?
    Stevens, Shawn M.
    Dougherty, Hayden
    Wenstrup, Lisa
    Hammer, Theresa
    Cole, Tyler
    Redmann, Andrew
    Pensak, Myles L.
    Samy, Ravi N.
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2019, 40 (03) : 321 - 327
  • [43] UNANSWERED QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INDICATION FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT
    BANFAI, P
    FELLNER, E
    FINKENZELLER, P
    KARCZAG, A
    KUBIK, S
    LUERS, P
    SURTH, W
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY, 1988, 9 (03): : 203 - 210
  • [44] Candidacy for Cochlear implantation: Validating a novel Cochlear implant candidacy calculator against gold-standard, in-clinic audiometric assessments
    So, Raymond J.
    Padova, Dominic
    Bowditch, Stephen
    Agrawal, Yuri
    LARYNGOSCOPE INVESTIGATIVE OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2022, 7 (03): : 835 - 839
  • [45] Development and Evaluation of a Language-Independent Test of Auditory Discrimination for Referrals for Cochlear Implant Candidacy Assessment
    Ching, Teresa Y. C.
    Dillon, Harvey
    Hou, Sanna
    Seeto, Mark
    Sodan, Ana
    Chong-White, Nicky
    EAR AND HEARING, 2022, 43 (04): : 1151 - 1163
  • [46] Panel discussion IV: Cochlear implant candidacy, elderly and residual hearing
    Backous, Douglas D.
    Dowell, Richard
    Manrique, Manuel
    Waltzman, Susan
    Haynes, David S.
    Garcia-Gomez, Juan Manuel
    EAR AND HEARING, 2007, 28 (02): : 128S - 129S
  • [47] ROUND WINDOW VERSUS PROMONTORY STIMULATION - ASSESSMENT FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT CANDIDACY
    SHIPP, DB
    NEDZELSKI, JM
    ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY, 1991, 100 (11): : 889 - 892
  • [48] Access to cochlear implant candidacy evaluations: Who is not making it to the team evaluations?
    Wiley, Susan
    Meinzen-Derr, Jareen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2009, 48 (02) : 74 - 79
  • [49] Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients
    Lahlou, Ghizlene
    Daoudi, Hannah
    Ferrary, Evelyne
    Jia, Huan
    De Bergh, Marion
    Nguyen, Yann
    Sterkers, Olivier
    Mosnier, Isabelle
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (07)
  • [50] Pediatric Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Minimum Test Battery and Referral Criteria for Cochlear Implant Candidacy Evaluation
    Anne, Samantha
    Brown, Kevin D.
    Goldberg, Donald M.
    Adunka, Oliver F.
    Kenna, Margaret
    Chien, Wade
    Teagle, Holly
    Zwolan, Teresa A.
    Sydlowski, Sarah A.
    Roush, Patricia
    Buchman, Craig A.
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2022, 166 (03) : 405 - 409