Literature DB >> 20071994

Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy.

René H Gifford1, Michael F Dorman, Jon K Shallop, Sarah A Sydlowski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether a revision and/or expansion of current audiologic cochlear implant candidacy criteria is warranted.
DESIGN: The study design was a retrospective review of postoperative speech perception performance for 22 adult cochlear implant recipients who demonstrated preoperative Consonant Nucleus Consonant word recognition scores of 30% or higher in the best-aided condition. This criterion was chosen to exceed that specified by the North American clinical trial of the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system.
RESULTS: The mean preoperative best-aided monosyllabic word score for the 22 patients was 41% correct. The degree of postoperative benefit for the best postoperative condition (electric only or bimodal) ranged from 10 to 68 percentage points with a mean benefit of 27 percentage points for the electric-only condition and 40 percentage points for the bimodal condition. Statistical analyses revealed highly significant differences between preoperative-aided, implant-only, and bimodal performance on Consonant Nucleus Consonant monosyllabic word recognition performance. That is, both postoperative scores--electric only and bimodal--were significantly different from one another and from the preoperative best-aided performance.
CONCLUSIONS: The current results suggest that a large-scale reassessment of manufacturer and Medicare preoperative audiologic candidacy criteria for adults is warranted to allow more hearing-impaired individuals to take advantage of the benefits offered by cochlear implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20071994      PMCID: PMC4092164          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c6b831

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  41 in total

1.  Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Value of the promontory stimulation test in predicting speech perception after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jong Cheol Lee; Myung Hoon Yoo; Joong Ho Ahn; Kwang-Sun Lee
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Speech recognition in quiet and noise in borderline cochlear implant candidates.

Authors:  Farah Mohd Alkaf; Jill B Firszt
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.

Authors:  Aaron J Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli; Steven J Staller; Patti L Arndt; Anne Cosgriff; Kiara Ebinger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Quality-of-life benefit from cochlear implantation in the elderly.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Jan P L Brokx; Floris L Wuyts; Ellen Cochet; Anouk Hofkens; Paul H Van de Heyning
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans.

Authors:  J B Nadol; J Y Shiao; B J Burgess; D R Ketten; D K Eddington; B J Gantz; I Kos; P Montandon; N J Coker; J T Roland; J K Shallop
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.547

7.  Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance.

Authors:  Jose N Fayad; Fred H Linthicum
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants.

Authors:  B J Gantz; G G Woodworth; J F Knutson; P J Abbas; R S Tyler
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.547

9.  Adult cochlear implant patient performance with evolving electrode technology.

Authors:  T Zwolan; P R Kileny; S Smith; D Mills; D Koch; M J Osberger
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  Cochlear implants in the geriatric population: benefits outweigh risks.

Authors:  C A Buchman; M J Fucci; W M Luxford
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.697

View more
  50 in total

1.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Sarah E King; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Laura K Holden; Michael Strube
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Verification of computed tomographic estimates of cochlear implant array position: a micro-CT and histologic analysis.

Authors:  Jessica Teymouri; Timothy E Hullar; Timothy A Holden; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  The effects of cochlear implantation on quality of life in the elderly.

Authors:  W Di Nardo; R Anzivino; S Giannantonio; L Schinaia; G Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  The Effect of Hearing Aid Bandwidth and Configuration of Hearing Loss on Bimodal Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman; Annette Zeman; Jonathan Neukam; Binhuan Wang; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Linguistic Context Versus Semantic Competition in Word Recognition by Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Nicole M Amichetti; Eriko Atagi; Ying-Yee Kong; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Performance variability on perceptual discrimination tasks in profoundly deaf adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Nathaniel R Peterson; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk; Xin Yang; Jason Parton
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.288

10.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.