Alice van Zon1,2, Yvette E Smulders1,2, Inge Stegeman1,2, Geerte G J Ramakers1,2, Veronique J C Kraaijenga1,2, Simone P C Koenraads1,2, Gijsbert A Van Zanten1,2, Albert B Rinia1, Robert J Stokroos3, Rolien H Free4,5, Johan H M Frijns6,7, Wendy J Huinck8,9, Emmanuel A M Mylanus8,9, Rinze A Tange1,2, Adriana L Smit1,2, Hans G X M Thomeer1,2, Vedat Topsakal1,2, Wilko Grolman1,2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 5. Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Research School of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 7. Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 9. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate hearing capabilities and self-reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) after a 2-year follow-up and to evaluate the learning effect of cochlear implantees over time. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS:Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in this study and randomly allocated to either UCI or simultaneous BiCI. Our primary outcome was speech intelligibility in noise, with speech and noise coming from straight ahead (Utrecht-Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels). Secondary outcomes were speech intelligibility in noise with spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence (Dutch phoneme test), localization capabilities and self-reported benefits assessed with different quality of hearing and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. This article describes the results after 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: We found comparable results for the UCI and simultaneous BiCI group, when speech and noise were both presented from straight ahead. Patients in the BiCI group performed significantly better than patients in the UCI group, when speech and noise came from different directions (P = .01). Furthermore, their localization capabilities were significantly better. These results were consistent with patients' self-reported hearing capabilities, but not with the questionnaires regarding QoL. We found no significant differences on any of the subjective and objective reported outcomes between the 1-year and 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates important benefits of simultaneous BiCI compared with UCI that remain stable over time. Bilaterally implanted patients benefit significantly in difficult everyday listening situations such as when speech and noise come from different directions. Furthermore, bilaterally implanted patients are able to localize sounds, which is impossible for unilaterally implanted patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b Laryngoscope, 127:1161-1168, 2017.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate hearing capabilities and self-reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) after a 2-year follow-up and to evaluate the learning effect of cochlear implantees over time. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in this study and randomly allocated to either UCI or simultaneous BiCI. Our primary outcome was speech intelligibility in noise, with speech and noise coming from straight ahead (Utrecht-Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels). Secondary outcomes were speech intelligibility in noise with spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence (Dutch phoneme test), localization capabilities and self-reported benefits assessed with different quality of hearing and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. This article describes the results after 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: We found comparable results for the UCI and simultaneous BiCI group, when speech and noise were both presented from straight ahead. Patients in the BiCI group performed significantly better than patients in the UCI group, when speech and noise came from different directions (P = .01). Furthermore, their localization capabilities were significantly better. These results were consistent with patients' self-reported hearing capabilities, but not with the questionnaires regarding QoL. We found no significant differences on any of the subjective and objective reported outcomes between the 1-year and 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates important benefits of simultaneous BiCI compared with UCI that remain stable over time. Bilaterally implanted patients benefit significantly in difficult everyday listening situations such as when speech and noise come from different directions. Furthermore, bilaterally implanted patients are able to localize sounds, which is impossible for unilaterally implanted patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b Laryngoscope, 127:1161-1168, 2017.
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: Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Geerte G J Ramakers; Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Inge Stegeman; Robert J Stokroos; Rolien H Free; Johan H M Frijns; Wendy J Huinck; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman Journal: Front Surg Date: 2017-11-13
Authors: Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Rolien H Free; Johan H M Frijns; Wendy J Huinck; Robert J Stokroos; Wilko Grolman Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Michaela Plath; Theresa Marienfeld; Matthias Sand; Philipp S van de Weyer; Mark Praetorius; Peter K Plinkert; Ingo Baumann; Karim Zaoui Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.503