OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the changes in health-related quality of life in unilateral adult cochlear implant patients using the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-36 (SF-36) and the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3). To do so, a health utility index was obtained by converting the SF-36 to the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-6D (SF-6D) to permit comparison with HUI-3 scores in the context of health preference as measured by quality-adjusted life years. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Eighty-one postlingually deaf adult patients undergoing cochlear implantation completed the SF-36 and HUI-3 preoperatively and at a median of 1.4 years (range, 11 months-5 years) after cochlear implantation. RESULTS: The SF-36 improvement was statistically significant in two domains. The SF-36 data were converted to SF-6D. Preoperatively, the mean SF-6D utility score was 0.575 ± 0.056. One year postoperatively this score increased to 0.590 ± 0.064. The improvement of 0.015 ± 0.082 was not statistically significant (P = .1118). Of the HUI-3 attributes, two showed improvement between preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The overall HUI-3 score increased from 0.464 ± 0.207 preoperatively to 0.611 ± 0.190 postoperatively. The gain of 0.146 ± 0.19 was statistically significant (P < .0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the SF-6D and HUI-3 showed a very small correlation, both pre- and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Against the backdrop of diminishing resources for healthcare, cost-effective analysis is fast becoming an important tool. There remains a strong need for health-related quality-of-life instruments that can truly reflect the benefit of cochlear implantation, in which utility estimates are fundamentally important. The SF-36 scores, when converted to SF-6D, do not correlate well with HUI-3 scores in a cohort of adult cochlear implant recipients. The HUI-3 remains the most appropriate tool for this patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the changes in health-related quality of life in unilateral adult cochlear implant patients using the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-36 (SF-36) and the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3). To do so, a health utility index was obtained by converting the SF-36 to the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Survey-6D (SF-6D) to permit comparison with HUI-3 scores in the context of health preference as measured by quality-adjusted life years. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Eighty-one postlingually deaf adult patients undergoing cochlear implantation completed the SF-36 and HUI-3 preoperatively and at a median of 1.4 years (range, 11 months-5 years) after cochlear implantation. RESULTS: The SF-36 improvement was statistically significant in two domains. The SF-36 data were converted to SF-6D. Preoperatively, the mean SF-6D utility score was 0.575 ± 0.056. One year postoperatively this score increased to 0.590 ± 0.064. The improvement of 0.015 ± 0.082 was not statistically significant (P = .1118). Of the HUI-3 attributes, two showed improvement between preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The overall HUI-3 score increased from 0.464 ± 0.207 preoperatively to 0.611 ± 0.190 postoperatively. The gain of 0.146 ± 0.19 was statistically significant (P < .0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the SF-6D and HUI-3 showed a very small correlation, both pre- and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Against the backdrop of diminishing resources for healthcare, cost-effective analysis is fast becoming an important tool. There remains a strong need for health-related quality-of-life instruments that can truly reflect the benefit of cochlear implantation, in which utility estimates are fundamentally important. The SF-36 scores, when converted to SF-6D, do not correlate well with HUI-3 scores in a cohort of adult cochlear implant recipients. The HUI-3 remains the most appropriate tool for this patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4
Authors: Peter R Dixon; David Feeny; George Tomlinson; Sharon Cushing; Joseph M Chen; Murray D Krahn Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Michael Bauschard; Jonathan L Hatch; Emily Franko-Tobin; Harris Richard Droghini; Craig A Velozo; Shaun A Nguyen; Judy R Dubno Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Miryam Calvino; Javier Gavilán; Isabel Sánchez-Cuadrado; Rosa M Pérez-Mora; Elena Muñoz; Jesús Díez-Sebastián; Luis Lassaletta Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: M Marx; I Mosnier; J Belmin; J Wyss; C Coudert-Koall; A Ramos; R Manrique Huarte; R Khnifes; O Hilly; A Martini; D Cuda Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Ellen Andries; Annick Gilles; Vedat Topsakal; Olivier Vanderveken; Paul Van de Heyning; Vincent Van Rompaey; Griet Mertens Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 2.503