Results With Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Speech Recognition Scores Exceeding Current Criteria

Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate a group of postlingually deafened adults, whose aided speech recognition exceeded commonly accepted candidacy criteria for implantation. The study aimed to define performance and qualitative outcomes of cochlear implants in these individuals compared with their optimally fitted hearing aid(s). Study Design Retrospective case series. Setting Tertiary referral center. Patients All postlingually deafened subjects (N = 27), who were unsuccessful hearing aid users implanted between 2000 and 2010 with a preimplantation Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) score of 60% or more were included. Intervention We compared patients’ preoperative performance (HINT score) with hearing aids to postoperative performance with the cochlear implant after 12 months of device use. In addition, the Hearing Handicap Inventory questionnaire was used to quantify the hearing-related handicap change perceived after the implantation. Results The study group demonstrated significant postoperative improvement on all outcome measures; most notably, the mean HINT score improved from 68.4% (standard deviation, 8.3) to 91.9% (standard deviation, 9.7). Additionally, there was a significant improvement in hearing-related handicap perceived by all patients. Conclusion The envelope of implantation candidacy criteria continues to expand as shown by this study’s cohort. Patient satisfaction and speech recognition results are very encouraging in support of treating those who currently perform at a level above the conventional candidacy threshold but struggle with optimally fitted hearing aids.

[1]  B. Reimer,et al.  Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss--implications for patient selection. , 1998, Audiology.

[2]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[3]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[4]  J. Niparko,et al.  Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: The Effect of History and Residual Hearing on Predicted Postoperative Performance , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[5]  D. Brackmann The Facial Nerve in the Infratemporal Approach , 1987, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[6]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[8]  D. Brackmann Recommendations for the Reporting of Preoperative Testing and Postoperative Results in Cochlear Implantation , 1987, Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery.

[9]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Cochlear Implantation in Unilateral Deaf Subjects Associated With Ipsilateral Tinnitus , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[11]  Michael A Novak,et al.  Standard Cochlear Implantation of Adults With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing: Implications for Combined Electro-Acoustic Stimulation , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[12]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[13]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Effects of Minimum Stimulation Settings for the Med El Tempo+ Speech Processor on Speech Understanding , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  Preservation of Residual Hearing in Children and Post-Lingually Deafened Adults after Cochlear Implantation: An Initial Study , 2002, ORL.

[15]  David Shipp,et al.  Speech Coding Strategies and Revised Cochlear Implant Candidacy: An Analysis of Post-Implant Performance , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[16]  N Dillier,et al.  Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[17]  D. Proops,et al.  Criteria of Candidacy for Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults I: Theory and Measures of Effectiveness , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[18]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a New Tool , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Patricia A. Leake,et al.  Factors influencing neurotrophic effects of electrical stimulation in the deafened developing auditory system , 2008, Hearing Research.

[20]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[21]  Ilona Anderson,et al.  Incapacitating Unilateral Tinnitus in Single-Sided Deafness Treated by Cochlear Implantation , 2008, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[22]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing , 2008, Hearing Research.