Véronique J C Kraaijenga1,2, Geerte G J Ramakers1,2, Yvette E Smulders1,2, Alice van Zon1,2, Inge Stegeman1,2, Adriana L Smit1,2, Robert J Stokroos3, Nadia Hendrice3, Rolien H Free4,5, Bert Maat4,5, Johan H M Frijns6,7, Jeroen J Briaire6,7, E A M Mylanus8,9, Wendy J Huinck8,9, Gijsbert A Van Zanten1,2, 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
Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trial on the comparison between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) has been performed. Objective: To investigate the hearing capabilities and the self-reported benefits of simultaneous BiCIs compared with those of sequential BiCIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 12, 2010, and September 2, 2012, at 5 tertiary referral centers among 40 participants eligible for BiCIs. Main inclusion criteria were postlingual severe to profound hearing loss, age 18 to 70 years, and a maximum duration of 10 years without hearing aid use in both ears. Data analysis was conducted from May 24 to June 12, 2016. Interventions: The simultaneous BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgical procedure. The sequential BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants with an interval of 2 years between implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, the results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs were compared with the results 1 year after receiving sequential BiCIs. Second, the results of 3 years of follow-up for both groups were compared separately. The primary outcome measure was speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead. Secondary outcome measures were speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence, localization capabilities, and self-reported benefits assessed with various hearing and quality of life questionnaires. Results:Nineteen participants were randomized to receive simultaneous BiCIs (11 women and 8 men; median age, 52 years [interquartile range, 36-63 years]), and another 19 participants were randomized to undergo sequential BiCIs (8 women and 11 men; median age, 54 years [interquartile range, 43-64 years]). Three patients did not receive a second cochlear implant and were unavailable for follow-up. Comparable results were found 1 year after simultaneous or sequential BiCIs for speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead (difference, 0.9 dB [95% CI, -3.1 to 4.4 dB]) and all secondary outcome measures except for localization with a 30° angle between loudspeakers (difference, -10% [95% CI, -20.1% to 0.0%]). In the sequential BiCI group, all participants performed significantly better after the BiCIs on speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources and on all localization tests, which was consistent with most of the participants' self-reported hearing capabilities. Speech intelligibility-in-noise results improved in the simultaneous BiCI group up to 3 years following the BiCIs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study shows comparable objective and subjective hearing results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs and sequential BiCIs with an interval of 2 years between implants. It also shows a significant benefit of sequential BiCIs over a unilateral cochlear implant. Until 3 years after receiving simultaneous BiCIs, speech intelligibility in noise significantly improved compared with previous years. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.
RCT Entities:
Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trial on the comparison between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) has been performed. Objective: To investigate the hearing capabilities and the self-reported benefits of simultaneous BiCIs compared with those of sequential BiCIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 12, 2010, and September 2, 2012, at 5 tertiary referral centers among 40 participants eligible for BiCIs. Main inclusion criteria were postlingual severe to profound hearing loss, age 18 to 70 years, and a maximum duration of 10 years without hearing aid use in both ears. Data analysis was conducted from May 24 to June 12, 2016. Interventions: The simultaneous BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgical procedure. The sequential BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants with an interval of 2 years between implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, the results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs were compared with the results 1 year after receiving sequential BiCIs. Second, the results of 3 years of follow-up for both groups were compared separately. The primary outcome measure was speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead. Secondary outcome measures were speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence, localization capabilities, and self-reported benefits assessed with various hearing and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Nineteen participants were randomized to receive simultaneous BiCIs (11 women and 8 men; median age, 52 years [interquartile range, 36-63 years]), and another 19 participants were randomized to undergo sequential BiCIs (8 women and 11 men; median age, 54 years [interquartile range, 43-64 years]). Three patients did not receive a second cochlear implant and were unavailable for follow-up. Comparable results were found 1 year after simultaneous or sequential BiCIs for speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead (difference, 0.9 dB [95% CI, -3.1 to 4.4 dB]) and all secondary outcome measures except for localization with a 30° angle between loudspeakers (difference, -10% [95% CI, -20.1% to 0.0%]). In the sequential BiCI group, all participants performed significantly better after the BiCIs on speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources and on all localization tests, which was consistent with most of the participants' self-reported hearing capabilities. Speech intelligibility-in-noise results improved in the simultaneous BiCI group up to 3 years following the BiCIs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study shows comparable objective and subjective hearing results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs and sequential BiCIs with an interval of 2 years between implants. It also shows a significant benefit of sequential BiCIs over a unilateral cochlear implant. Until 3 years after receiving simultaneous BiCIs, speech intelligibility in noise significantly improved compared with previous years. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.
Authors: Richard Ramsden; Paula Greenham; Martin O'Driscoll; Deborah Mawman; David Proops; Louise Craddock; Claire Fielden; John Graham; Leah Meerton; Carl Verschuur; Joseph Toner; Cecilia McAnallen; Jonathan Osborne; Maire Doran; Roger Gray; Margaret Pickerill Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Alice van Zon; Yvette E Smulders; Geerte G J Ramakers; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Robert J Stokroos; Wendy J Huinck; Johan H M Frijns; Rolien H Free; Wilko Grolman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: James M Gaylor; Gowri Raman; Mei Chung; Jounghee Lee; Madhumathi Rao; Joseph Lau; Dennis S Poe Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Inge Stegeman; Albert B Rinia; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Robert J Stokroos; Nadia Hendrice; Rolien H Free; Bert Maat; Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck; Adriana L Smit; Vedat Topsakal; Rinze A Tange; Wilko Grolman Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.223
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: 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; 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