Literature DB >> 25998097

Identification and evaluation of cochlear implant candidates with asymmetrical hearing loss.

Christophe Vincent1, Susan Arndt, Jill B Firszt, Bernard Fraysse, Pádraig T Kitterick, Blake C Papsin, Ad Snik, Paul Van de Heyning, Olivier Deguine, Mathieu Marx.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recommendation for cochlear implant (CI) treatment for individuals with severe to profound single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetrical hearing loss (AHL) is on the rise. This raises the need for greater consistency in the definition of CI candidacy for these cases and in the assessment methods of patient-related benefits to permit effective comparison and interpretation of the outcomes with both conventional and implantable options across studies.
METHOD: During a dedicated seminar on implant treatment in AHL patients, the panellists of the closing round table reviewed the clinical experience presented with the aim to define clear audiometric characteristics for both AHL and SSD cases, as well as a common data set enabling consistent evaluation of hearing benefits in this population.
CONCLUSIONS: The panellists agreed on a clear differentiation between AHL and SSD CI candidates, defining average pure-tone thresholds up to 4 kHz for better and poorer ears. Agreement was reached on a minimum set of assessment procedures, and included the necessity of trials with conventional CROS/BICROS hearing aids and bone conduction devices before considering CI treatment. Objective assessment of sound localisation abilities was identified as the most relevant criterion to quantify performance before and after treatment. In parallel, subjective assessment of overall hearing ability was recommended via the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of hearing questionnaire. Longitudinal follow-up of these parameters and the hours of daily use were considered essential to reflect the potential treatment benefits for this population. The consistency in the data collection and its report will further support health authorities in their decision on acceptable gains from available hearing loss treatment options.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25998097     DOI: 10.1159/000380754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  18 in total

1.  Selective Neuronal Activation by Cochlear Implant Stimulation in Auditory Cortex of Awake Primate.

Authors:  Luke A Johnson; Charles C Della Santina; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper.

Authors:  Paul Van de Heyning; Dayse Távora-Vieira; Griet Mertens; Vincent Van Rompaey; Gunesh P Rajan; Joachim Müller; John Martin Hempel; Daniel Leander; Daniel Polterauer; Mathieu Marx; Shin-Ichi Usami; Ryosuke Kitoh; Maiko Miyagawa; Hideaki Moteki; Kari Smilsky; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Thomas Georg Keintzel; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Astrid Wolf-Magele; Susan Arndt; Thomas Wesarg; Stefan Zirn; Uwe Baumann; Tobias Weissgerber; Tobias Rader; Rudolf Hagen; Anja Kurz; Kristen Rak; Robert Stokroos; Erwin George; Ruben Polo; María Del Mar Medina; Yael Henkin; Ohad Hilly; David Ulanovski; Ranjith Rajeswaran; Mohan Kameswaran; Maria Fernanda Di Gregorio; Mario E Zernotti
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss.

Authors:  S Arndt; R Laszig; A Aschendorff; F Hassepass; R Beck; T Wesarg
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  The impact of etiology and duration of deafness on speech perception outcomes in SSD patients.

Authors:  Anja Kurz; Marius Grubenbecher; Kristen Rak; Rudolf Hagen; Heike Kühn
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Changes in the Gene Expression Profiles of the Inferior Colliculus Following Unilateral Cochlear Ablation in Adult Rats.

Authors:  Hog Kwon Kil; Kyung Woon Kim; Da-Hye Lee; So Min Lee; Chang Ho Lee; So Young Kim
Journal:  Biochem Genet       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 1.890

6.  [Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss. German version].

Authors:  S Arndt; R Laszig; A Aschendorff; F Hassepass; R Beck; T Wesarg
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Kenneth Kragh Jensen; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Asymmetric hearing loss and the benefit of cochlear implantation regarding speech perception, tinnitus burden and psychological comorbidities: a prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  Manuel Christoph Ketterer; Steffen Knopke; Sophia Marie Häußler; Tanja Hildenbrand; Christoph Becker; Stefan Gräbel; Heidi Olze
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 9.  Bilateral cochlear implants in children: Effects of auditory experience and deprivation on auditory perception.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Karen Gordon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Cochlear Implantation and Other Treatments in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Results of a National Multicenter Study Including a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Mathieu Marx; Isabelle Mosnier; Frederic Venail; Michel Mondain; Alain Uziel; David Bakhos; Emmanuel Lescanne; Yann N'Guyen; Daniele Bernardeschi; Olivier Sterkers; Olivier Deguine; Benoît Lepage; Benoit Godey; Sébastien Schmerber; Nicolas-Xavier Bonne; Christophe Vincent; Bernard Fraysse
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 1.854

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.