Literature DB >> 33229878

Do Patients Benefit From a Cochlear Implant When They Qualify Only in the Presence of Background Noise?

Emily M H Lundberg1, Darcy Strong2, Melinda Anderson2,3, Alexander M Kaizer4, Samuel Gubbels2,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in pre- to postoperative speech performance of patients qualifying for a cochlear implant (CI) in quiet, +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and +5 dB SNR. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Fifty-eight post-lingually deafened, unilateral CI recipients from three Groups were included: 1) those who met CI candidacy criteria with AzBio sentences in quiet, 2) in noise at +10 dB SNR but not in quiet, 3) and in noise at +5 dB SNR but not in quiet or +10 dB SNR. INTERVENTION: Unilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and 1 year postoperative speech recognition scores.
RESULTS: Best-aided AzBio speech recognition of individuals in Group 1 improved significantly for all test conditions and improved significantly for Groups 2 and 3 in the +10 and +5 dB SNR test conditions postoperatively. When tested with their CI alone however, while AzBio speech recognition of individuals in Group 1 and Group 2 improved significantly in the quiet and +10 dB SNR conditions, speech recognition was not significantly changed postoperatively under any testing condition for individuals in Group 3.
CONCLUSIONS: While individuals qualifying for a CI only in the +5 dB SNR condition may derive significant benefit from implantation in best aided conditions, speech understanding outcomes can be more variable thus warranting additional counseling before implantation and case-by-case consideration of listening needs and goals.
Copyright © 2020, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33229878      PMCID: PMC8075067          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002878

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.619


  23 in total

1.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jon K Shallop; Anna Mary Peterson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: The Degradation of Phonemic Sensitivity.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  AzBio Speech Understanding Performance in Quiet and Noise in High Performing Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jason A Brant; Steven J Eliades; Hannah Kaufman; Jinbo Chen; Michael J Ruckenstein
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 5.  Cochlear Implant Access in Six Developed Countries.

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

6.  Auditory Performances in Older and Younger Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: Use of the HEARRING Registry.

Authors:  Anouk Hofkens-Van den Brandt; Griet Mertens; Annick Gilles; Erik Fransen; Luis Lassaletta; Javier Gavilan; Miryam Calvino; Yuri Yanov; Vladislav Kuzovkov; Dmitrii Kliachko; Mario Zernotti; Dra Maria Fernanda Di Gregorio; Vincent Van Rompaey; Paul Van de Heyning; Seraphima Sugarova
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  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

8.  Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy.

Authors:  Douglas P Sladen; René H Gifford; David Haynes; David Kelsall; Aaron Benson; Kristen Lewis; Teresa Zwolan; Qian-Jie Fu; Bruce Gantz; Jan Gilden; Brian Westerberg; Cindy Gustin; Lori O'Neil; Colin L Driscoll
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients.

Authors:  Peter Blamey; Françoise Artieres; Deniz Başkent; François Bergeron; Andy Beynon; Elaine Burke; Norbert Dillier; Richard Dowell; Bernard Fraysse; Stéphane Gallégo; Paul J Govaerts; Kevin Green; Alexander M Huber; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Bert Maat; Mathieu Marx; Deborah Mawman; Isabelle Mosnier; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Stephen O'Leary; Alexandra Rousset; Karen Schauwers; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Olivier Sterkers; Assia Terranti; Eric Truy; Paul Van de Heyning; Fréderic Venail; Christophe Vincent; Diane S Lazard
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 1.854

Review 10.  On the Horizon: Cochlear Implant Technology.

Authors:  Joseph P Roche; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 3.346

View more
  1 in total

1.  Home-Based Speech Perception Monitoring for Clinical Use With Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Sara Magits; Tom Francart; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 4.677

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.