Literature DB >> 32966101

Benefits of a Hearing Registry: Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Quiet Versus Noise in 1,611 Patients.

Camille Dunn1, Sharon E Miller2, Erin C Schafer2,3, Christopher Silva3, René H Gifford3,4, Jedidiah J Grisel3,5.   

Abstract

Purpose This retrospective study used a cochlear implant registry to determine how performing speech recognition candidacy testing in quiet versus noise influenced patient selection, speech recognition, and self-report outcomes. Method Database queries identified 1,611 cochlear implant recipients who were divided into three implant candidacy qualifying groups based on preoperative speech perception scores (≤ 40% correct) on the AzBio sentence test: quiet qualifying group, +10 dB SNR qualifying group, and +5 dB SNR qualifying group. These groups were evaluated for demographic and preoperative hearing characteristics. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare pre- and postoperative performance on the AzBio in quiet and noise with qualifying group as a between-subjects factor. For a subset of recipients, pre- to postoperative changes on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale were also evaluated. Results Of the 1,611 patients identified as cochlear implant candidates, 63% of recipients qualified in quiet, 10% qualified in a +10 dB SNR, and 27% qualified in a +5 dB SNR. Postoperative speech perception scores in quiet and noise significantly improved for all qualifying groups. Across qualifying groups, the greatest speech perception improvements were observed when tested in the same qualifying listening condition. For a subset of patients, the total Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale ratings improved significantly as well. Conclusion Patients who qualified for cochlear implantation in quiet or background noise test conditions showed significant improvement in speech perception and quality of life scores, especially when the qualifying noise condition was used to track performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32966101      PMCID: PMC8608190          DOI: 10.1044/2020_AJA-20-00055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Audiol        ISSN: 1059-0889            Impact factor:   1.493


  20 in total

1.  Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status of older adults.

Authors:  Howard W Francis; Nelson Chee; Jennifer Yeagle; Andre Cheng; John K Niparko
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 2.  Measuring Success: Cost-Effectiveness and Expanding Access to Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  James E Saunders; Howard W Francis; Piotr H Skarzynski
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Insurance Payer Status Predicts Postoperative Speech Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Sharon E Miller; Chelsea Anderson; Jacy Manning; Erin Schafer
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 4.  Cochlear Implant Access in Six Developed Countries.

Authors:  Donna L Sorkin; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Leonid M Litvak; Susan Van Wie; Rene H Gifford; Philipos C Loizou; Louise M Loiselle; Tyler Oakes; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Older Individuals Meeting Medicare Cochlear Implant Candidacy Criteria in Noise but Not in Quiet: Are These Patients Improved by Surgery?

Authors:  Jordan A Mudery; Ross Francis; Hilary McCrary; Abraham Jacob
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Survey of the American Neurotology Society on Cochlear Implantation: Part 1, Candidacy Assessment and Expanding Indications.

Authors:  Matthew L Carlson; Douglas P Sladen; Richard K Gurgel; Nicole M Tombers; Christine M Lohse; Colin L Driscoll
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Richard K Gurgel; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Cochlear implantation in the world's largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States.

Authors:  Donna L Sorkin
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2013-03

10.  What are the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Rishi Mandavia; Alec Knight; Alexander W Carter; Connor Toal; Elias Mossialos; Peter Littlejohns; Anne Gm Schilder
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  5 in total

1.  Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global Scores for Experienced Cochlear Implant Users from a Multi-Institutional Study.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 2.619

2.  Understanding Patient Expectations Before Implantation Using the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-Expectations Instrument.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 8.961

3.  Development of a novel screening tool for predicting Cochlear implant candidacy.

Authors:  Stephany J Ngombu; Christin Ray; Kara Vasil; Aaron C Moberly; Varun V Varadarajan
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-10-26

Review 4.  Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery.

Authors:  Ashley M Nassiri; John P Marinelli; Donna L Sorkin; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2021-12-09

5.  Functional localization of audiovisual speech using near infrared spectroscopy.

Authors:  Iliza M Butera; Eric D Larson; Andrea J DeFreese; Adrian Kc Lee; René H Gifford; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 4.275

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.