Speech Perception in Noise and Sound Localization for Cochlear Implant With Single-Sided Deafness Compared With Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids.

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD) is a relatively new treatment modality. Although comparing the effectiveness of CI and contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids (HAs) is important, very few reports on this topic exist. In this study, objective assessments and subjective assessments were conducted to determine which SSD individuals would prefer CI or CROS HAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Objective assessments (speech perception and sound localization) and subjective assessments (Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), MOS Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2)) were performed on 87 SSD patients. Of the 87 SSD patients, 33 patients hoped for CROS HAs, and 17 patients hoped for CI. The CI group underwent subjective and objective assessments at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The CROS HAs group underwent objective assessments at 1 month after wearing CROS HAs. RESULTS: After the intervention, the localization ability was significantly improved in the CI group (p < 0.05) with no significant improvement in that of the CROS HAs group (p = 0.48). No significant improvement in speech perception in noise was observed in the CROS (Signal-to-Noise ratio + 10, p = 0.08; SN + 0, p = 0.17); however, a significant improvement in the CI group was observed at 12 months postoperatively. The APHAB subscale "background noise" and SF-36v2 health concepts of role-physical, general health, vitality, role-emotional, and mental health were significantly higher in the CI group. CONCLUSION: CI was superior to CROS HAs in speech perception in terms of noise and sound localization. Patients with postlingual acute-onset hearing loss and more handicaps and a more positive view of their hearing loss possibly tend to choose CI.

Analysis of outcomes for communication mode in cochlear implant in prelingually deafened adults.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have suggested that speech perception outcomes after cochlear implantation (CI) in prelingually deafened adults have improved with advances in CI technology and speech processing strategies. However, the outcomes vary from case to case. Communication mode has been reported in many studies as the factor that related to the post CI outcomes. This study aimed at investigating the post CI outcomes and the progress during 2 years for each communication mode. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The subjects were 17 prelingually deafened adults undergoing CI at our hospital between April 2013 and March 2019. We investigated preoperative factors affecting post CI outcomes. Also we analyzed post CI outcomes for each communication mode and compared preoperative factors for each communication mode. RESULTS: Communication mode and preoperative discrimination score were the factor affecting on postoperative discrimination score. The speech perception score after CI improved significantly in the oral and lip-reading group and total communication group. The speech perception scores in postlingually deafened adults improved significantly during the first six months and became to plateau after CI. On the other hand, the scores of prelingually deafened adults tended to improve gradually after six months postoperatively. Furthermore, the degree of improvement and progress differed by each communication mode. CONCLUSION: The communication mode is important factors in predicting outcomes in prelingually deafened adults after CI. Long-term auditory training is important for prelingually deafened adults who use visual information as their preoperative method of communication.