OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation compared with unilateral cochlear implantation or bimodal stimulation, in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. In 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the U.K. conducted a systematic review on cochlear implantation. This study forms an update of the adult part of the NICE review. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases MEDLINE and Embase were searched for English language studies published between October 2006 and March 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included that compared bilateral cochlear implantation with unilateral cochlear implantation and/or with bimodal stimulation, in adults with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Speech perception in quiet and in noise, sound localization and lateralization, speech production, health-related quality of life, and functional outcomes were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction forms were used to describe study characteristics and the level of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: The effect size was calculated to compare different outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Pooling of data was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the studies. As in the NICE review, the level of evidence of the included studies was low, although some of the additional studies showed less risk of bias. All studies showed a significant bilateral benefit in localization over unilateral cochlear implantation. Bilateral cochlear implants were beneficial for speech perception in noise under certain conditions and several self-reported measures. Most speech perception in quiet outcomes did not show a bilateral benefit. The current review provides additional evidence in favor of bilateral cochlear implantation, even in complex listening situations.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation compared with unilateral cochlear implantation or bimodal stimulation, in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. In 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the U.K. conducted a systematic review on cochlear implantation. This study forms an update of the adult part of the NICE review. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases MEDLINE and Embase were searched for English language studies published between October 2006 and March 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included that compared bilateral cochlear implantation with unilateral cochlear implantation and/or with bimodal stimulation, in adults with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Speech perception in quiet and in noise, sound localization and lateralization, speech production, health-related quality of life, and functional outcomes were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction forms were used to describe study characteristics and the level of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: The effect size was calculated to compare different outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Pooling of data was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the studies. As in the NICE review, the level of evidence of the included studies was low, although some of the additional studies showed less risk of bias. All studies showed a significant bilateral benefit in localization over unilateral cochlear implantation. Bilateral cochlear implants were beneficial for speech perception in noise under certain conditions and several self-reported measures. Most speech perception in quiet outcomes did not show a bilateral benefit. The current review provides additional evidence in favor of bilateral cochlear implantation, even in complex listening situations.
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Joshua E Fabie; Prashant N Bhenswala; Shaun A Nguyen; Judy R Dubno Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Inge Stegeman; Adriana L Smit; Robert J Stokroos; Nadia Hendrice; Rolien H Free; Bert Maat; Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; E A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: L J G Lambriks; M van Hoof; J A Debruyne; M Janssen; J Chalupper; K A van der Heijden; J R Hof; C A Hellingman; E L J George; E M J Devocht Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ville Sivonen; Saku T Sinkkonen; Tytti Willberg; Satu Lamminmäki; Hilkka Jääskelä-Saari; Antti A Aarnisalo; Aarno Dietz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman; Inge Stegeman Journal: BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord Date: 2017-11-28