Cochlear Implant Qualification in Noise Versus Quiet : Do Patients Demonstrate Similar Postoperative Benefits?
© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation..
OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors, audiometric performance, and patient-reported outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) patients who would not have qualified with in-quiet testing alone.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
METHODS: Adult CI recipients implanted between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Patients with preoperative AzBio Quiet > 60% in the implanted ear, requiring multitalker babble to qualify, comprised the in-noise qualifying (NQ) group. NQ postoperative performance was compared with the in-quiet qualifying (QQ) group using CNC, AzBio Quiet, and AzBio +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), Cochlear Implant Quality of Life scale (CIQOL-10), and daily device usage were also compared between the groups.
RESULTS: The QQ group (n = 771) and NQ group (n = 67) were similar in age and hearing loss duration. NQ had higher average preoperative and postoperative speech recognition scores. A larger proportion of QQ saw significant improvement in CNC and AzBio Quiet scores in the CI-only listening condition (eg, CI-only AzBio Quiet: 88% QQ vs 51% NQ, P < .001). Improvement in CI-only AzBio +5 dB and in all open set testing in the best-aided binaural listening condition was similar between groups (eg, Binaural AzBio Quiet 73% QQ vs 59% NQ, P = .345). Postoperative SSQ ratings, CIQOL scores, and device usage were also equivalent between both groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients who require in-noise testing to meet CI candidacy demonstrate similar improvements in best-aided speech perception and patient-reported outcomes as in-QQ, supporting the use of in-noise testing to determine CI qualification for borderline CI candidates.
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2024 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:170 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery - 170(2024), 5 vom: 14. Mai, Seite 1411-1420 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Schauwecker, Natalie [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
---|
Themen: |
Cochlear implant |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.04.2024 Date Revised 30.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
---|
doi: |
10.1002/ohn.677 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM368434028 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | NLM368434028 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240501232349.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 240214s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/ohn.677 |2 doi | |
028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1394.xml |
035 | |a (DE-627)NLM368434028 | ||
035 | |a (NLM)38353294 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Schauwecker, Natalie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Cochlear Implant Qualification in Noise Versus Quiet |b Do Patients Demonstrate Similar Postoperative Benefits? |
264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a Date Completed 29.04.2024 | ||
500 | |a Date Revised 30.04.2024 | ||
500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
520 | |a © 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. | ||
520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors, audiometric performance, and patient-reported outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) patients who would not have qualified with in-quiet testing alone | ||
520 | |a STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review | ||
520 | |a SETTING: Tertiary referral center | ||
520 | |a METHODS: Adult CI recipients implanted between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Patients with preoperative AzBio Quiet > 60% in the implanted ear, requiring multitalker babble to qualify, comprised the in-noise qualifying (NQ) group. NQ postoperative performance was compared with the in-quiet qualifying (QQ) group using CNC, AzBio Quiet, and AzBio +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), Cochlear Implant Quality of Life scale (CIQOL-10), and daily device usage were also compared between the groups | ||
520 | |a RESULTS: The QQ group (n = 771) and NQ group (n = 67) were similar in age and hearing loss duration. NQ had higher average preoperative and postoperative speech recognition scores. A larger proportion of QQ saw significant improvement in CNC and AzBio Quiet scores in the CI-only listening condition (eg, CI-only AzBio Quiet: 88% QQ vs 51% NQ, P < .001). Improvement in CI-only AzBio +5 dB and in all open set testing in the best-aided binaural listening condition was similar between groups (eg, Binaural AzBio Quiet 73% QQ vs 59% NQ, P = .345). Postoperative SSQ ratings, CIQOL scores, and device usage were also equivalent between both groups | ||
520 | |a CONCLUSION: Patients who require in-noise testing to meet CI candidacy demonstrate similar improvements in best-aided speech perception and patient-reported outcomes as in-QQ, supporting the use of in-noise testing to determine CI qualification for borderline CI candidates | ||
650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
650 | 4 | |a cochlear implant | |
650 | 4 | |a outcomes | |
650 | 4 | |a speech perception | |
650 | 4 | |a speech‐in‐noise | |
700 | 1 | |a Patro, Ankita |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Holder, Jourdan T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Bennett, Marc L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Perkins, Elizabeth |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Moberly, Aaron C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery |d 1982 |g 170(2024), 5 vom: 14. Mai, Seite 1411-1420 |w (DE-627)NLM012595721 |x 1097-6817 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:170 |g year:2024 |g number:5 |g day:14 |g month:05 |g pages:1411-1420 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ohn.677 |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 170 |j 2024 |e 5 |b 14 |c 05 |h 1411-1420 |