Postlingually deaf adults of all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant.

BACKGROUND: Controversy still exists regarding the impact of age on speech recognition following cochlear implant in postlingually deaf adults. In some studies elderly recipients did not perform as well as younger patients on standard speech recognition tests. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that cochlear implantation improves quality of life, as measured by self-administered questionnaires, but the sample sizes of these studies have been relatively small, thus making age stratification a challenge. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to assess whether the age at which a patient receives a unilateral cochlear implant affects improvements in speech recognition scores and perceived quality of life. A secondary objective was to determine whether preoperative use of hearing aids correlates with improvement in speech recognition and perceived quality of life after cochlear implantation. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective study in a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 161 postlingually deaf adults, who were divided based on age (<50, 50-65, >65) and on prior hearing aid(s) use. INTERVENTION: All patients received a unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Speech recognition was quantified by percent correct scores on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences delivered in a quiet setting only (HINT%), and quality of life was quantified by the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI) before and 1 yr after cochlear implantation. RESULTS: Speech recognition, as measured by HINT%, improved significantly and to similar extents in all three age groups following cochlear implantation. Similarly, quality of life as quantified by HHI improved markedly and to similar extents in all age groups. Whether hearing aids were used pre-implant, or whether the cochlear implant (CI) was implanted on the same side or contralateral to the hearing aid side, had no substantial effect on the patients' performances on either speech recognition or quality of life. Moreover, there were no statistically significant correlations between pre-implant speech recognition scores and pre-implant quality of life scores or between postimplant speech recognition scores and postimplant quality of life scores. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study demonstrate that cochlear implantation improves HINT% and HHI scores to similar extents across all age groups. This finding suggests that elderly patients may derive speech recognition and quality of life benefits similar to those of younger patients and that age should not be an essential factor in the determination of CI candidacy. Furthermore, prior use of a hearing aid, and its location in relation to the cochlear implant, does not influence the extent of improvement in speech recognition or quality of life measurements following cochlear implantation.

Glasgow Benefit Inventory in Cochlear Implantation: A Reliable Though Ancillary Quality of Life Metric.

OBJECTIVE: The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) is a health-related quality of life instrument used to detect changes in health status following otolaryngologic interventions. Despite its use in cochlear implant literature, assessment of utility, reliability, and validity of GBI in an adult cochlear implants (CI) patient population has yet to be performed. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Academic, tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Postlingually deafened, adult CI patients with at least 1 year of device use. INTERVENTIONS: Five hundred fifty-two patients were administered GBI questionnaires at least 1 year following CI activation during follow-up visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GBI total and subscale scoring were compared to either the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults or Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Moreover, a factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha were performed to determine GBI validity and internal reliability, respectively. RESULTS: The average overall GBI score was 38.6 ±â€Š21.7. This was weakly correlated to the reduction in Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults/Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (τb = 0.282, p < 0.05). High factor loading with minimal cross-loading was noted on a three-factor solution, which emulated the original GBI development. Internal reliability was acceptable for the general benefit (α = 0.913) and social support subclasses (α = 0.706), whereas physical health's was low (α = 0.643). CONCLUSIONS: Although GBI possesses adequate convergent and discriminant validity with acceptable reliability, its routine use to capture CI-specific health-related changes should not supersede validated CI-specific QoL instruments.

A comparison of postcochlear implantation speech scores in an adult population.

OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of cochlear implant recipients realize significant improvement in speech perception. However, there continue to be a small group that does not realize such a benefit. In an effort to identify possible predictors for this, we have compared pre- and postimplant audiologic data using Hearing In Noise Test (HINT), City University of New York (CUNY), or Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) scores for 445 consecutive English-speaking adult patients followed for a minimum of 1 year postimplantation in two distinct groups, poor versus excellent performers. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. METHODS: Poor performers were those who realized a worsening, no improvement, or an improvement of less than 10%. This group numbered 58 (13%). High performers consisted of a cadre of 194 (44%) patients who scored between 91 and 100% postimplantation. Demographic data relating to onset of deafness, education exposure, etiology, etc., were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the poor performers, 33 (57%) were pre-/perilingually deafened. Of these, 79% had not received any auditory/oral training in childhood. On the other hand, a total of 109 implant recipients were individuals who were pre-/perilingually deafened. Of these, 24 were in the excellent performer category. All were identified early and were recipients of a strong auditory/oral education. Of the high performers, 170 (88%) were deafened late. Other findings such as preoperative electronystagmography with caloric testing, hearing aid use, device type, and high-resolution computed tomography scan of the temporal bone will be discussed for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A high preimplant speech score, auditory verbal therapy, and postlingual deafness statistically correlate with higher postimplant speech scores 1 year after cochlear implantation. Device type, caloric response and hearing aid use preimplantation, age at surgery, and sex do not statistically correlate with either poor or excellent speech discrimination scores postcochlear implantation.

Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center with large cochlear implant program. PATIENTS: Nineteen patients with CSOM who underwent cochlear implantation were identified. Case history, timing of surgical procedures, complications, infections, and postimplant audiometric scores (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT], City University of New York Sentences [CUNY], and Central Institute for the Deaf Sentences [CID]) were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of postoperative infections and complications as well as postimplant auditory performance. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent a staged procedure involving canal wall down mastoidectomy or radical revision mastoidectomy with middle ear and mastoid obliteration and closure of the external auditory canal followed by cochlear implantation approximately 5 months later. Seven patients were implanted in a single procedure. There were no infections or medical complications after implantation. On average, patients had excellent audiometric scores at 1 year postimplantation (mean sentence test, 79%; SD, 14), and these scores were comparable to our general population (mean sentence test, 71%; SD, 32). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant patients with CSOM have no increased risk of postoperative infections or complications. These patients have excellent outcomes with audiometric scores comparable to the general cochlear implant population. Cochlear implantation is a safe and effective treatment for patients with profound hearing loss secondary to CSOM.

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.

When do we choose the 'better balance' ear for cochlear implants?

OBJECTIVES: In cochlear implant planning, the ear with poorer vestibular function, as determined through electronystagmography (ENG), is often selected as the site for implantation since surgery carries a low risk of iatrogenic labyrinthine injury. We sought to determine reasons for placing a cochlear implant in the 'better balance' ear. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients implanted with a cochlear implant at a tertiary care center from 1984 to June 2009 was performed. Based on ENG results, patients with asymmetric caloric reduction were identified. Of these patients, those who were implanted in the 'better balance' ear were selected for chart review. The charts were reviewed to determine rationale for ear selection. RESULTS: Of the 724 cochlear implant patients implanted from 1984 to June 2009, ENG tests demonstrated that 130 (18%) had asymmetric abnormal responses. Thirty five (27%) of the patients with asymmetric abnormal responses were implanted in the 'better balance' ear. Review of these 35 patient charts revealed that reasons for selection of the 'better balance' ear fell into four categories: anatomical contraindications, attempting to attain binaural hearing, avoiding implantation of an ear with marked auditory deprivation, and patient preference. DISCUSSION: Based on our current practice, we have identified four situations in which patients were implanted in the 'better balance' ear, and subsequently developed an algorithm to aid surgeons in side selection for cochlear implantation. Further study and validation of this algorithm is recommended.

The effects of unilateral cochlear implantation on the tinnitus handicap inventory and the influence on quality of life.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implantation is now the standard of care in patients with significant sensorineural hearing loss. It is well known that patients with severe hearing loss also experience disabling tinnitus. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of cochlear implants on the perception of tinnitus using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal study of 142 cochlear implant patients. METHODS: The THI was administered to 142 patients pre- and postimplantation. Outcome measures were obtained 12 months after the implantation. Secondary analyses to examine the correlation between changes in THI scores and outcome measures such as Hearing Handicap Inventory, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and short-form 36 (SF-36) quality-of-life scores were performed. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated statistically significant reduction of the THI scores including its subscales (P < .001). Prior to implantation, 37% of patients described their tinnitus as moderate to severe. Postoperatively, this percentage decreased to 10%. Cochlear implantation resulted in complete tinnitus suppression in 37% and tinnitus reduction in another 29% of patients. THI scores significantly correlated with three domains of the SF-36 quality-of-life questionnaire, namely social, emotional, and general health domains. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implants have a significant suppressive effect on tinnitus in 66% of implant users. Although the reduction in the subjectively perceived tinnitus was statistically significant, it did not correlate with HINT; however, it did correlate with three quality-of-life domains, more significantly for those whose pretreatment conditions were moderate or worse.

Cochlear implantation in patients with autoimmune inner ear disease including cogan syndrome: a comparison with age- and sex-matched controls.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED) who have undergone cochlear implantation (CI) and compare post-CI performance in AIED to matched controls. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case control study. METHODS: Study cohort was comprised of 25 adult implantees (AIED [n = 18], Cogan syndrome [n = 7]). The AIED group was defined by rapidly progressive bilateral sensorineural hearing loss leading to unusable hearing within weeks to months. Patients with Cogan syndrome, the archetypal inner ear autoimmune disease, were also examined and used for within-cohort comparison. Clinical and operative records were reviewed. Post-CI performance was assessed using open-set sentence tests. Age- and sex-matched individuals deafened by other postlingual causes were used as controls. RESULTS: Of 25 patients, 24 had uneventful, full electrode insertions. One AIED patient had partial insertion due to cochlear ossification and did not achieve open-set speech perception post-CI. Mean open-set sentence scores for study patients with uneventful insertions were 92.8%, 97.3%, and 96.4% at 6 months, 1 year, and ≥ 2 years, respectively. Compared to matched controls, patients deafened by autoimmune causes had significantly higher post-CI performance at all postoperative test intervals (P < .05). There was no significant difference in postimplantation performance between Cogan syndrome and AIED patients. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this was the largest study of cochlear implantation in AIED and Cogan syndrome patients. In our experience, both groups generally attained high levels of post-CI speech perception and performed above average. Cochlear ossification affecting implantation in Cogan syndrome patients was not observed in our series, contrary to some reports.

Hearing loss following intratympanic instillation of gentamicin for the treatment of unilateral Meniere's disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, extent, and time course of hearing loss following instillation of intratympanic gentamicin using a predetermined fixed protocol for incapacitating unilateral Meniere's disease and to determine whether such loss is associated with any identifiable risk factors. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of all patients treated with intratympanic gentamicin between 1988 and 1998 using American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery reporting guidelines (1985 and 1995). A predetermined regimen using a fixed dose (gentamicin 26.7 mg/mL administered three times daily for 4 consecutive days) was used. METHODS: The records of patients treated with this particular protocol were reviewed. The relationship between pretreatment hearing acuity, pretreatment bithermal caloric response, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment to post-treatment hearing were analyzed with respect to hearing. RESULTS: Complete vestibular and audiologic data over a minimum 2-year follow-up were available for 85 individuals. Sixty-three patients (74.1%) had unchanged or improved hearing, and 22 patients (25.9%) realized hearing loss. In 80% of the latter, it occurred during the first month post-treatment. When hearing acuity at the 1-month post-treatment interval remained unchanged (91.1%), it was likely to remain so over the next 23 months. A significantly higher incidence of profound hearing loss was noted in patients who developed hearing loss in the first month, as compared with those who developed hearing loss at a later period (p = .0207, relative risk = 1.5). Re-treatment was not associated with hearing loss. The only identifiable risk factor for developing hearing loss was pretreatment hearing acuity stages 3 and 4 (pure-tone average > 40 dB) (p = .022, relative risk = 1.5). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss is a recognized complication of treatment with intratympanic gentamicin, occurring in approximately 26% of individuals. In those individuals in whom hearing acuity has remained unchanged after the first month interval, significant worsening of hearing is unlikely, and patients can be reassured accordingly.

A matched-pair comparison of two cochlear implant systems.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the overall performance of two implant systems based on audiologic outcome, tinnitus handicap, and quality of life using objective and subjective measures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre. METHODS: Two matched groups, with 24 Nucleus 22 SPEAK (Advanced Bionics, Symlar, CA) and 24 Clarion CIS (Cochlear Corporation, Sydney, Australia), were selected. Patients were administered survey forms to evaluate subjective tinnitus and dizziness symptomatology, as well as a 27-item tinnitus handicap questionnaire. Both groups were administered survey forms to assess the frequency of implant use, the subjective benefit derived, and the perceived impact on quality of life. The 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36) Health Survey was administered as a measure of quality of life at 6 months postimplant. Standardized open-set speech recognition parameters were evaluated at 24 months postimplant. Vestibular function was determined by pre-and postimplant electronystagmography with caloric testing. The first author was blinded to implant type during data collection and analysis RESULTS: Cochlear implantation yielded a significant 22% reduction in overall tinnitus handicap (p < .05). There was a 27% reduction in vestibular function that failed to show statistical significance (p = .78). There was no significant reduction in vestibular function postimplant in either group. The average open-set speech perception responses at 24 months postimplant were monosyllabic word recognition 45%, phoneme recognition 65%, and sentence recognition 86.5%. There was no significant difference with respect to implant type. Overall, 76% of implantees reported satisfaction with the amount of subjective benefit they received from their implants. Furthermore, 96% reported an overall positive impact on quality of life. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference between the two multichannel devices studied using the present software and hardware configurations.

Evaluation of the high-resolution speech coding strategy for the Clarion CII cochlear implant system.

Four postlinguistically deafened adults were implanted with the Clarion CII cochlear implant with the HiFocus II electrode in an evaluation of performance with a new speech coding strategy (high resolution) compared with current speech coding strategies (multiple pulsatile sampler, continuous interleaved sampling, and simultaneous analog stimulation). These strategies were implemented in the Platinum speech processor from Advanced Bionics Corporation (Sylmar, CA). Postoperatively, subjects were fitted with the traditional coding strategies and over the first month were allowed to determine their strategy of choice. This strategy was used to evaluate open-set speech recognition performance at 1 month and 3 months postfitting. At 3 months postfitting, subjects were reprogrammed with the high-resolution strategy. They returned for speech recognition testing at 1 month and 3 months postfitting with this strategy. Performance was significantly better with the high-resolution strategy for all four subjects, particularly when listening to speech in background noise. This finding was in agreement with their strong preference for the high-resolution strategy, and all four patients continue to use the high-resolution strategy.

Early-deafened adult cochlear implant users: assessment of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adults deafened in the prelingual and perilingual stages of speech development realize objective and subjective benefits from cochlear implantation. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of the open-set speech recognition and subjective data such as use and quality of life. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1999, 198 deafened adults underwent cochlear implantation at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. Of these, 44 patients were deafened pre- or perilingually. These subjects were implanted with a Nucleus 22, Nucleus 24 (Cochlear Corporation, Denver, Colorado, USA), or Clarion (Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, California, USA) device. The average age at implantation was 34 years (range 14-62 years). Significant differences in speech perception, as measured by a composite score of open-set word, phoneme, and sentence recognition, were found among groups who differed by type of education and communication training received in childhood. CONCLUSION: By and large, open-set speech recognition in prelingually and perilingually deafened adults is inferior to that achieved in postlingually deafened adults and varies according to the type of communication training they received. However, cochlear implants have significantly improved the overall communication skills and quality of life in all subgroups of patients.

Benefits of cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults: the Toronto experience.

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of a survey administered to a group of early-deafened cochlear implants adults and to report the level of perceived benefit. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Large tertiary referral centre. METHOD: A 47-item questionnaire designed to evaluate cochlear implant use and benefit was sent to 42 early-deafened adult cochlear implant users. The questionnaire can be divided into seven subcategories: time of use, associated symptoms, communication, employment status and function, socialization, perceived benefit, and the impact on quality of life. Responses from 30 patients were received. RESULTS: The majority of our patients use their cochlear implant all of their waking hours. The majority of patients continue to depend on lip-reading and hearing as their main mode of communication, although they reported improved lip-reading skills with their cochlear implant. Twenty-three patients (76.7%) were employed. Eleven patients had a change in employment subsequent to cochlear implantation, nine (81.8%) of whom attributed this to their cochlear implant. Our patients als reported greater independence, a greater sense of safety in their environment, and an improved social life. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) said that they were satisfied with their implant, 28 (93.3%) said that they would go through the same process again, and 27 (90%) said that they would recommend it to a friend in a similar situation. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) stated that the cochlear implant has had a positive effect on their quality of life. Family and peer support, prior auditory-verbal therapy, and a positive attitude were the most commonly cited factors in successful cochlear implant use. CONCLUSIONS: Early-deafened adult cochlear implant users perceive significant benefit from cochlear implantation. Importantly, family and peer support, prior auditory-verbal therapy, and a positive attitude are considered important factors in maximizing this benefit.