Literature DB >> 27099106

Cochlear implantation in early deafened, late implanted adults: Do they benefit?

Raghunandhan Sampath Kumar1, Deborah Mawman1, Divyan Sankaran1, Christine Melling1, Martin O'Driscoll1, Simon M Freeman1, Simon K W Lloyd1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify the benefit gained from cochlear implantation in pre- or peri-lingually deafened patients who were implanted as adults
Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study. Auditory (BKB/CUNY/3AFC/Environmental sounds), quality of life (GBI/HUI3) and cognitive (customized questionnaire) outcomes in 26 late implanted pre- or peri-lingually deafened adults were compared to those of 30 matched post-lingually deafened, traditional cochlear implant users.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in all scores in the study group following cochlear implantation. BKB scores for cases was 49.8% compared to 83.6% for controls (p=0.037). CUNY scores for cases was 61.7% compared to 90.3% for controls (p=0.022). The 3AFC and environmental sounds scores were also better in controls compared to cases but the difference was not statistically significant. Quality of life scores improved following implantation in cases and controls but the improvement was only statistically significant in the controls. There was a 7.7% non-user rate in the cases. There were no non-users in the control group. DISCUSSION: Early deafened,,late implanted patients can benefit audiologically from cochlear implantation and in this study the improvement in speech discrimination scores was greater than expected perhaps reflecting careful selection of patients. Nevertheless, audiological benefits are limited compared to traditional cochlear implant recipients with the implant acting as an aid to lip reading in most cases.
CONCLUSION: With careful selection of candidates, cochlear implantation is beneficial in early deafened, late implanted patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Cochlear implant outcomes; Congenital deafness; Pre-lingual deafness; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27099106     DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1161142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int        ISSN: 1467-0100


  6 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of Cochlear Implantation Outcomes Evaluated With General Health-related Patient-reported Outcome Measures.

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

2.  Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

3.  The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults.

Authors:  Mutsa Gumbie; Emma Olin; Bonny Parkinson; Ross Bowman; Henry Cutler
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients.

Authors:  Ghizlene Lahlou; Hannah Daoudi; Evelyne Ferrary; Huan Jia; Marion De Bergh; Yann Nguyen; Olivier Sterkers; Isabelle Mosnier
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults.

Authors:  Henry Cutler; Mutsa Gumbie; Emma Olin; Bonny Parkinson; Ross Bowman; Hafsa Quadri; Timothy Mann
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-11-02

Review 6.  Development and Evaluation of a Language-Independent Test of Auditory Discrimination for Referrals for Cochlear Implant Candidacy Assessment.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Harvey Dillon; Sanna Hou; Mark Seeto; Ana Sodan; Nicky Chong-White
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.562

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.