Jason H Barnes1, Linda X Yin1, John P Marinelli1, Matthew L Carlson1,2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A. 2. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To describe the pre-implant audiometric profile of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients to investigate whether current binaural candidacy requirements prevent access to patients who could benefit from CI. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 evaluating preoperative pure-tone thresholds and speech perception scores in the ipsilateral and contralateral ear. RESULTS: A total of 252 adult CI recipients undergoing 270 implants were identified. Median age at time of implantation was 70.5 years (IQR 61.3-78.3) for those undergoing unilateral implantation and 59.0 (IQR 48.0-72.3) for those undergoing bilateral implantation (P < .01). For unilateral implantation, median pre-implantation speech perception performance in the ear to be implanted was 8.0% (IQR 0%-26.0%) for CNC word scores, and 9.0% (IQR 0%-34.0%) for AzBio sentence scores in quiet. Median speech perception performance in the contralateral ear was 36.0% (IQR 14.0%-60.0%) on CNC word scores, and 48.5% (IQR 17.5%-76.0%) on AzBio sentence tests. Speech perception scores were significantly different between ears for word and sentence tests (P < .01). Patients older than age 65 were significantly less likely to undergo bilateral implantation (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Adult CI recipients exhibit substantially poorer pre-implant speech perception scores than the commonly utilized ipsilateral qualifying threshold of 50% on sentence testing. Yet, existing insurance paradigms limit patients by excessively stringent binaural best-aided requirements. This limitation likely leads to worse device performance as patients often wait years for their binaural hearing to qualify while their ear to be implanted potentially experiences an unnecessarily extended duration of deafness. Older patients also experience a unique delay in referral for cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3- Retrospective review Laryngoscope, 131:E2007-E2012, 2021.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To describe the pre-implant audiometric profile of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients to investigate whether current binaural candidacy requirements prevent access to patients who could benefit from CI. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 evaluating preoperative pure-tone thresholds and speech perception scores in the ipsilateral and contralateral ear. RESULTS: A total of 252 adult CI recipients undergoing 270 implants were identified. Median age at time of implantation was 70.5 years (IQR 61.3-78.3) for those undergoing unilateral implantation and 59.0 (IQR 48.0-72.3) for those undergoing bilateral implantation (P < .01). For unilateral implantation, median pre-implantation speech perception performance in the ear to be implanted was 8.0% (IQR 0%-26.0%) for CNC word scores, and 9.0% (IQR 0%-34.0%) for AzBio sentence scores in quiet. Median speech perception performance in the contralateral ear was 36.0% (IQR 14.0%-60.0%) on CNC word scores, and 48.5% (IQR 17.5%-76.0%) on AzBio sentence tests. Speech perception scores were significantly different between ears for word and sentence tests (P < .01). Patients older than age 65 were significantly less likely to undergo bilateral implantation (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Adult CI recipients exhibit substantially poorer pre-implant speech perception scores than the commonly utilized ipsilateral qualifying threshold of 50% on sentence testing. Yet, existing insurance paradigms limit patients by excessively stringent binaural best-aided requirements. This limitation likely leads to worse device performance as patients often wait years for their binaural hearing to qualify while their ear to be implanted potentially experiences an unnecessarily extended duration of deafness. Older patients also experience a unique delay in referral for cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3- Retrospective review Laryngoscope, 131:E2007-E2012, 2021.
Authors: David S Lee; Jacques A Herzog; Amit Walia; Jill B Firszt; Kevin Y Zhan; Nedim Durakovic; Cameron C Wick; Craig A Buchman; Matthew A Shew Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Ashley M Nassiri; John P Marinelli; Christine M Lohse; Sarah A Sydlowski Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.311