Douglas P Sladen1, René H Gifford2, David Haynes3, David Kelsall4, Aaron Benson5, Kristen Lewis6, Teresa Zwolan7, Qian-Jie Fu8, Bruce Gantz9, Jan Gilden10, Brian Westerberg11, Cindy Gustin12, Lori O'Neil13, Colin L Driscoll1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A. 2. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Rocky Mountain Ear Center, Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A. 5. Department of Otolaryngology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Ohio, U.S.A. 6. Midwest Ear Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A. 7. University of Michigan Cochlear Implant Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 8. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 9. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A. 10. Houston Ear Research Foundation, Houston, Texas. 11. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vancouver Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 12. Department of Otolaryngology, Vancouver Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 13. Cochlear Americas, Centennial, Colorado, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long-term benefit for cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multi-center single-subject design. METHODS: A total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre- and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index. RESULTS: Performance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12-month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation. CONCLUSION: Results of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long-term postoperative speech recognition performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368-2374, 2017.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long-term benefit for cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multi-center single-subject design. METHODS: A total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre- and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index. RESULTS: Performance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12-month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation. CONCLUSION: Results of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long-term postoperative speech recognition performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368-2374, 2017.
Authors: Katrien Vermeire; Jan P L Brokx; Floris L Wuyts; Ellen Cochet; Anouk Hofkens; Paul H Van de Heyning Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: B Fraysse; N Dillier; T Klenzner; R Laszig; M Manrique; C Morera Perez; A H Morgon; J Müller-Deile; A Ramos Macias Journal: Am J Otol Date: 1998-09
Authors: Ankita Patro; Nathan R Lindquist; Jourdan T Holder; Kareem O Tawfik; Matthew R O'Malley; Marc L Bennett; David S Haynes; René Gifford; Elizabeth L Perkins Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Elizabeth Perkins; Mary S Dietrich; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; Robert Labadie; René Gifford Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Emily M H Lundberg; Darcy Strong; Melinda Anderson; Alexander M Kaizer; Samuel Gubbels Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Camille Dunn; Sharon E Miller; Erin C Schafer; Christopher Silva; René H Gifford; Jedidiah J Grisel Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 1.493
Authors: Alexander T Murr; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Emily Buss; English R King; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Matthew M Dedmon; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.970