Considerations for a Revised Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy Evaluation Protocol.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
entrez:
22
4
2021
pubmed:
23
4
2021
medline:
22
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the current metrics used in adult cochlear implant candidacy evaluations for consistency and applicability, and to make a recommendation for an updated assessment battery. Prospective, multicenter, within-subject clinical trial. North American cochlear implant programs including private practices, universities, and hospital centers. One hundred adult hearing aid users scoring 40% or less on monosyllabic words in quiet in the aided test ear who presented for cochlear implantation evaluation. Subjects underwent unilateral cochlear implantation. Speech perception measured via Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet and AzBio sentences in noise. Patient-reported hearing disability measured via the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale administered preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Significant group mean improvement on all speech perception measures and SSQ subscales postoperatively with possible floor effects observed in objective background noise testing preoperatively and a broad range of variability seen postoperatively. Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words are an effective tool to clinically evaluate hearing ability over time. Adjustment of cochlear implant screening protocols to prioritize monosyllabic words over sentences in noise as the chief determining factor appears justified, and this test can be supplemented by the SSQ for a holistic and applicable assessment of cochlear implant candidacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33885262
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002966
pii: 00129492-202101000-00041
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159-164Références
World Health Organization, Deafness and Hearing Loss, March 2019. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss . Accessed October 23, 2019.
Biever A, Gilden J, Zwolan T, Mears M. Upgrade to Nucleus® 6 in Previous Generation Cochlear™ sound processor recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29:802–813.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Cochlear Implantation. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=245&ver=2 Accessed December 16, 2019.
Fabry D, Firszt JB, Gifford RH, Holden LK, Koch DB. Evaluating speech perception benefit in adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Today 2009; 21:36–43.
Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson A. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: Considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13:193–205.
Hirshorn MS, Mecklenburg DJ, Brimacombe JA. Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant: Preliminary observations. J Rehabil Res Dev 1986; 23:27–33.
Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, et al. Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1991; 12:3–22.
Balkany T, Hodges A, Menapace C, et al. Nucleus Freedom North American clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 136:757–762.
Runge CL, Henion K, Tarima S, Beiter A, Zwolan T. Clinical outcomes of the Cochlear Nucleus 5 cochlear implant system and SmartSound 2 signal processing. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27:425–440.
Wilson R, McArdle R. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev Clin 2005; 42:79–94.
Kramer S, Zekveld A, Houtgast T. Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: The value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50:507–515.
Lupo E, Biever A, Kelsall DC. Comprehensive hearing aid assessment in adults with bilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who present for Cochlear implant evaluation. Am J Otolaryngol 2019; 41:102300.
Helsinki World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2000; 284:3043–3045.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27:62–70.
Spahr A, Dorman M, Litvak L, et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33:112–117.
Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43:85–99.
Gatehouse S, Akeroyd M. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol 2006; 45:120–124.
Portnuff C, Bell B. Effective use of speech-in-noise testing in the clinic. Hear J 2019; 72:40–43.
Shojaei E, Ashayeri H, Jafari Z, Dast MRZ, Kamali K. Effect of signal to noise ratio on the speech perception ability of older adults. Med J Islamic Repub Iran 2016; 30:342.
Noble W, Jensen NS, Naylor G, Bhullar N, Akeroyd M. A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: The SSQ12. Int J Audiol 2013; 52:409–412.
Miranda-Gonsalez EC, Almedia K. Hearing disability measured by the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ): Pilot study of a short version in Brazilian Portuguese. Audiol Commun Res 2017; 22:e1709.