Craig A Buchman1, René H Gifford2, David S Haynes2, Thomas Lenarz3, Gerard O'Donoghue4,5, Oliver Adunka6, Allison Biever7, Robert J Briggs8,9,10, Matthew L Carlson11, Pu Dai12, Colin L Driscoll11, Howard W Francis13, Bruce J Gantz14, Richard K Gurgel15, Marlan R Hansen14, Meredith Holcomb16,17, Eva Karltorp18, Milind Kirtane19, Jannine Larky20, Emmanuel A M Mylanus21, J Thomas Roland22, Shakeel R Saeed23, Henryk Skarzynski24, Piotr H Skarzynski24,25,26, Mark Syms27, Holly Teagle28, Paul H Van de Heyning29, Christophe Vincent30, Hao Wu31, Tatsuya Yamasoba32, Terry Zwolan33. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 4. Department of Otology and Neurotology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 5. Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 6. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 7. Rocky Mountain Ear Center, Englewood, Colorado. 8. Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 9. Otology and Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 10. Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 11. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 12. Department of Otolaryngology, General Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China. 13. Division of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, Duke Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 14. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 15. Division of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City. 16. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 17. now with Department of Otolaryngology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 18. Cochlear Implant Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 19. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. 20. Cochlear Implant Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 21. Department of Ear Nose Throat, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 22. NYU Langone Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York. 23. Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital and University College London Ear Institute, London, United Kingdom. 24. Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, World Hearing Center, Kajetany, Nadarzyn, Poland. 25. Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 26. Institute of Sensory Organs, Kajetany, Nadarzyn, Poland. 27. Arizona Hearing Center, Phoenix. 28. School of Population Health-Audiology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 29. Department NKO & Head-Neck Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 30. Service d'Otologie et Oto-Neurologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France. 31. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 32. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Auditory and Voice Surgery, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 33. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
Importance: Cochlear implants are a treatment option for individuals with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who receive little or no benefit from hearing aids; however, cochlear implantation in adults is still not routine. Objective: To develop consensus statements regarding the use of unilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a modified Delphi consensus process that was informed by a systematic review of the literature and clinical expertise. Searches were conducted in the following databases: (1) MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE, (2) Embase, and (3) the Cochrane Library. Consensus statements on cochlear implantation were developed using the evidence identified. This consensus process was relevant for the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. The literature searches were conducted on July 18, 2018, and the 3-step Delphi consensus method took place over the subsequent 9-month period up to March 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: A Delphi consensus panel of 30 international specialists voted on consensus statements about cochlear implantation, informed by an SR of the literature and clinical expertise. This vote resulted in 20 evidence-based consensus statements that are in line with clinical experience. A modified 3-step Delphi consensus method was used to vote on and refine the consensus statements. This method consisted of 2 rounds of email questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting of panel members at the final round. All consensus statements were reviewed, discussed, and finalized at the face-to-face meeting. Results: In total, 6492 articles were identified in the searches of the electronic databases. After removal of duplicate articles, 74 articles fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were used to create the 20 evidence-based consensus statements. These 20 consensus statements on the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL were relevant to the following 7 key areas of interest: level of awareness of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement); best practice clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery (3 consensus statements); best practice guidelines for surgery (2 consensus statements); clinical effectiveness of cochlear implantation (4 consensus statements); factors associated with postimplantation outcomes (4 consensus statements); association between hearing loss and depression, cognition, and dementia (5 consensus statements); and cost implications of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement). Conclusions and Relevance: These consensus statements represent the first step toward the development of international guidelines on best practices for cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL. Further research to develop consensus statements for unilateral cochlear implantation in children, bilateral cochlear implantation, combined electric-acoustic stimulation, unilateral cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness, and asymmetrical hearing loss in children and adults may be beneficial for optimizing hearing and quality of life for these patients.
Importance: Cochlear implants are a treatment option for individuals with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who receive little or no benefit from hearing aids; however, cochlear implantation in adults is still not routine. Objective: To develop consensus statements regarding the use of unilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a modified Delphi consensus process that was informed by a systematic review of the literature and clinical expertise. Searches were conducted in the following databases: (1) MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE, (2) Embase, and (3) the Cochrane Library. Consensus statements on cochlear implantation were developed using the evidence identified. This consensus process was relevant for the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. The literature searches were conducted on July 18, 2018, and the 3-step Delphi consensus method took place over the subsequent 9-month period up to March 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: A Delphi consensus panel of 30 international specialists voted on consensus statements about cochlear implantation, informed by an SR of the literature and clinical expertise. This vote resulted in 20 evidence-based consensus statements that are in line with clinical experience. A modified 3-step Delphi consensus method was used to vote on and refine the consensus statements. This method consisted of 2 rounds of email questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting of panel members at the final round. All consensus statements were reviewed, discussed, and finalized at the face-to-face meeting. Results: In total, 6492 articles were identified in the searches of the electronic databases. After removal of duplicate articles, 74 articles fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were used to create the 20 evidence-based consensus statements. These 20 consensus statements on the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL were relevant to the following 7 key areas of interest: level of awareness of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement); best practice clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery (3 consensus statements); best practice guidelines for surgery (2 consensus statements); clinical effectiveness of cochlear implantation (4 consensus statements); factors associated with postimplantation outcomes (4 consensus statements); association between hearing loss and depression, cognition, and dementia (5 consensus statements); and cost implications of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement). Conclusions and Relevance: These consensus statements represent the first step toward the development of international guidelines on best practices for cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL. Further research to develop consensus statements for unilateral cochlear implantation in children, bilateral cochlear implantation, combined electric-acoustic stimulation, unilateral cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness, and asymmetrical hearing loss in children and adults may be beneficial for optimizing hearing and quality of life for these patients.
Authors: Alana Aylward; Steven A Gordon; Morganne Murphy-Meyers; Chelsea McCarty Allen; Neil S Patel; Richard K Gurgel Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Matthias Hey; Adam A Hersbach; Thomas Hocke; Stefan J Mauger; Britta Böhnke; Alexander Mewes Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Douglas Backous; Byung Yoon Choi; Rafael Jaramillo; Kelvin Kong; Thomas Lenarz; Jaydip Ray; Alok Thakar; Myrthe K S Hol Journal: J Int Adv Otol Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 1.316