Comparison Between Simulated and Actual Unilateral Hearing in Sequentially Implanted Cochlear Implant Users, a Cohort Study.

Introduction: Previous studies have proven the effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation compared to unilateral cochlear implantation. In many of these studies the unilateral hearing situation was simulated by switching off one of the cochlear implants in bilateral cochlear implant users. In the current study we assess the accuracy of this test method. Does simulated unilateral hearing (switching off one cochlear implant) result in the same outcomes as real life unilateral hearing with one cochlear implant and a non-implanted contralateral ear? Study design: We assessed the outcomes of one arm of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: In the original trial, 38 postlingually deafened adults were randomly allocated to either simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation or sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. In the current study we used the data of the sequentially implanted group (n = 19). The primary outcome was speech perception-in-noise from straight ahead. Secondary outcomes were speech perception-in-silence, speech intelligibility-in-noise from spatially separated sources and localization capabilities. A within-subjects design was used to compare the results of hearing with one cochlear implant and a non-implanted contralateral ear (1- and 2-year follow-up) with the results of switching off one cochlear implant after sequential bilateral implantation (3-year follow-up). Results: We found no significant differences on any of the objective outcomes after 1-, 2-, or 3-year follow-up. Conclusion: This study shows that simulating unilateral hearing by switching off one cochlear implant seems a reliable method to compare unilateral and bilateral hearing in bilaterally implanted patients. Clinical Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722.

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss. Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year follow-up period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) either, simultaneously (simBiCI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-in-noise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type). Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCI group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for follow-up. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCI group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 - 13.44], p < 0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 - -36.74], p < 0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCI group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-reported outcomes regarding speech perception in noise and localization abilities. This difference is associated with the inferior performance of the UCI/seqBiCI participants during the years of unilateral CI use. After receiving the second CI however, the performance of the UCI/seqBiCI group did not significantly differ from the simBiCI group. Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722.

Predicting sequential bilateral cochlear implantation performance in postlingually deafened adults; A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify which preoperative patient characteristics influence sequential bilateral cochlear implantation performance and to create a statistical model that predicts benefit. DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective cohort study. SETTING: All patients were operated in four academic teaching hospitals in Perth, Australia, and followed up by audiologists of the Ear Science Institute Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 92 postlingually deafened adult patients who had undergone sequential cochlear implantations between 19 June 1990 and 14 March 2016 were included. Patients were excluded if the 12-month follow-up consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) phoneme score was missing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The effect of 18 preoperative factors on the CNC phoneme score in quiet (at 65 dB SPL) with the second cochlear implant (CI2) one year after implantation. RESULTS: Two factors were positively correlated to speech understanding with CI2: Wearing a hearing aid (HA) before receiving CI2 (r = 0.46, P = 0.00) and the maximum CNC phoneme score with the first CI (CI1) (r = 0.21, P = 0.05). Two factors were negatively correlated: the length of hearing loss before CI2 in the second implanted ear (r = -0.25, P = 0.02) and preoperative pure tone average (PTA) (0.5, 1, 2 kHz) before CI2 in the second implanted ear (r = -0.27, P = 0.01). The following model could be created: predicted CNC phoneme score with CI2 (%) = 16 + (44 * HA use before CI2 (yes)) - (0.22 * length of hearing loss before CI2 (years)) + (0.23 * CNC phoneme score with CI1 (%)). Because the effect of HA use before implantation played such a major role, we also created a model after exclusion of the HA factor: Predicted CNC phoneme score with CI2 (%) = 82 - (0.17 * length of hearing loss before CI2 (years)) - (0.27 * PTA in second implanted ear before CI2 (0.5, 1, 2 kHz)) + (0.20 * CNC phoneme score with CI1 (%)). CONCLUSION: Advanced age or a long interval between implantations does not necessarily lead to poor CI2 results. Patients who are successful HA users before CI2, who have a low PTA before CI2, a high CNC phoneme score with CI1 and a limited length of hearing loss before CI2, are likely to be successful CI2 recipients.

Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation.

BACKGROUND: There are many methods for assessing hearing performance after cochlear implantation. Standard evaluations often encompass objective hearing tests only, while patients' subjective experiences gain importance in today's healthcare. The aim of the current study was to analyze the correlation between subjective (self-reported questionnaires) and objective (speech perception and localization) hearing test results in adult cochlear implant (CI) users. Secondary, the correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests was compared between bilateral and unilateral CI patients. METHODS: Data for this study were prospectively collected as part of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adult patients were randomly allocated to receive either unilateral (n = 19) or bilateral (n = 19) cochlear implantation. We used data gathered after one year of follow-up. We studied the correlation between objectively measured speech perception and localization skills on the one hand and related domains of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) on the other hand. We also compared these correlations between unilateral and bilateral CI users. RESULTS: We found significant weak to moderate negative correlations between the subjective test results (speech domain of the SSQ and the advanced speech perception domain of the NCIQ) and the related objective speech perception in noise test results (r = -0.33 to -0.48). A significant moderate correlation was found between the subjective test results (spatial domain of the SSQ) and the related objective localization test results (r = 0.59). The correlations in the group of bilateral CI patients (r = -0.28 to -0.54) did not differ significantly from the correlations in the group of unilateral CI patients (r = 0.15 to -0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Current objective tests do not fully reflect subjective everyday listening situations. This study elucidates the importance and necessity of questionnaires in the evaluation of cochlear implantation. Therefore, it is advised to evaluate both objective and subjective tests in CI patients on a regular basis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on March 11, 2009 in the Dutch Trial Register. Trial registration number: NTR1722.

Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation.

IMPORTANCE: There is an ongoing global discussion on whether or not bilateral cochlear implantation should be standard care for bilateral deafness. Contrary to unilateral cochlear implantation, however, little is known about the effect of bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus. OBJECTIVE: To investigate tinnitus outcomes 1 year after bilateral cochlear implantation. Secondarily, to compare tinnitus outcomes between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate long-term follow-up (3 years). STUDY DESIGN: This study is a secondary analysis as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in the original trial, in which the presence of tinnitus was not an inclusion criterion. All participants received cochlear implants (CIs) because of profound hearing loss. Nineteen participants received bilateral CIs simultaneously and 19 participants received bilateral CIs sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years. The prevalence and severity of tinnitus before and after simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were measured preoperatively and each year after implantation with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ). RESULTS: The prevalence of preoperative tinnitus was 42% (16/38). One year after bilateral implantation, there was a median difference of -8 (inter-quartile range (IQR): -28 to 4) in THI score and -9 (IQR: -17 to -9) in TQ score in the participants with preoperative tinnitus. Induction of tinnitus occurred in five participants, all in the simultaneous group, in the year after bilateral implantation. Although the preoperative and also the postoperative median THI and TQ scores were higher in the simultaneous group, the median difference scores were equal in both groups. In the simultaneous group, tinnitus scores fluctuated in the 3 years after implantation. In the sequential group, four patients had an additional benefit of the second CI: a total suppression of tinnitus compared with their unilateral situation. CONCLUSION: While bilateral cochlear implantation can have a positive effect on preoperative tinnitus complaints, the induction of (temporary or permanent) tinnitus was also reported. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722.

Objective and Subjective Measures of Simultaneous vs Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trial on the comparison between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) has been performed. Objective: To investigate the hearing capabilities and the self-reported benefits of simultaneous BiCIs compared with those of sequential BiCIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 12, 2010, and September 2, 2012, at 5 tertiary referral centers among 40 participants eligible for BiCIs. Main inclusion criteria were postlingual severe to profound hearing loss, age 18 to 70 years, and a maximum duration of 10 years without hearing aid use in both ears. Data analysis was conducted from May 24 to June 12, 2016. Interventions: The simultaneous BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgical procedure. The sequential BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants with an interval of 2 years between implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, the results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs were compared with the results 1 year after receiving sequential BiCIs. Second, the results of 3 years of follow-up for both groups were compared separately. The primary outcome measure was speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead. Secondary outcome measures were speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence, localization capabilities, and self-reported benefits assessed with various hearing and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Nineteen participants were randomized to receive simultaneous BiCIs (11 women and 8 men; median age, 52 years [interquartile range, 36-63 years]), and another 19 participants were randomized to undergo sequential BiCIs (8 women and 11 men; median age, 54 years [interquartile range, 43-64 years]). Three patients did not receive a second cochlear implant and were unavailable for follow-up. Comparable results were found 1 year after simultaneous or sequential BiCIs for speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead (difference, 0.9 dB [95% CI, -3.1 to 4.4 dB]) and all secondary outcome measures except for localization with a 30° angle between loudspeakers (difference, -10% [95% CI, -20.1% to 0.0%]). In the sequential BiCI group, all participants performed significantly better after the BiCIs on speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources and on all localization tests, which was consistent with most of the participants' self-reported hearing capabilities. Speech intelligibility-in-noise results improved in the simultaneous BiCI group up to 3 years following the BiCIs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study shows comparable objective and subjective hearing results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs and sequential BiCIs with an interval of 2 years between implants. It also shows a significant benefit of sequential BiCIs over a unilateral cochlear implant. Until 3 years after receiving simultaneous BiCIs, speech intelligibility in noise significantly improved compared with previous years. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.

Stable benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implantation after two years: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate hearing capabilities and self-reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) after a 2-year follow-up and to evaluate the learning effect of cochlear implantees over time. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in this study and randomly allocated to either UCI or simultaneous BiCI. Our primary outcome was speech intelligibility in noise, with speech and noise coming from straight ahead (Utrecht-Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels). Secondary outcomes were speech intelligibility in noise with spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence (Dutch phoneme test), localization capabilities and self-reported benefits assessed with different quality of hearing and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. This article describes the results after 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: We found comparable results for the UCI and simultaneous BiCI group, when speech and noise were both presented from straight ahead. Patients in the BiCI group performed significantly better than patients in the UCI group, when speech and noise came from different directions (P = .01). Furthermore, their localization capabilities were significantly better. These results were consistent with patients' self-reported hearing capabilities, but not with the questionnaires regarding QoL. We found no significant differences on any of the subjective and objective reported outcomes between the 1-year and 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates important benefits of simultaneous BiCI compared with UCI that remain stable over time. Bilaterally implanted patients benefit significantly in difficult everyday listening situations such as when speech and noise come from different directions. Furthermore, bilaterally implanted patients are able to localize sounds, which is impossible for unilaterally implanted patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b Laryngoscope, 127:1161-1168, 2017.

Predicting Sequential Cochlear Implantation Performance: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review of the literature reveals which pre-operative factors affect sequential cochlear implantation outcomes in adults. The findings can help health care prof-essionals provide evidence-based advice on the expected benefits from a second cochlear implant (CI). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from November 1977 to August 26, 2017, using the terms "sequential cochlear implantation"; the most frequently cited predictors for unilateral cochlear implantation performance and other potential predictors for sequential implantation outcome; and "speech perception," "localization" as well as synonyms of all of the above. Ten studies were included. The effects of age, duration of hearing loss, time between implantations, preoperative hearing, etiology of hearing loss, hearing aid use and duration of follow-up on sequential cochlear implantation performance were studied. The literature has shown that duration of deafness, age at onset of deafness, etiology of hearing loss, and preoperative speech perception score are (inversely) related to unilateral cochlear implantation outcome in adults. One would expect that these factors would also affect sequential bilateral implantation outcome. However, the best available evidence to date shows that advanced age, a long duration of deafness, or a long interval between implantations should not be considered negative factors when considering sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.

Development of a Squelch Effect in Adult Patients After Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a squelch effect occurs in the first 3 years after simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate whether this effect increases during follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial that compares simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation to sequential and unilateral cochlear implantation. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Nineteen postlingually deafened adults. INTERVENTION: Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The squelch effect, measured yearly with a speech-intelligibility-in-noise test with spatially separated sources. Bilateral results were compared to unilateral results in which the cochlear implant at the noise side was turned off. The squelch effect was investigated for the patients' best performing ear and for the left and right ears separately. RESULTS: In 13 individual patients, a squelch effect was present after 1 year. This number increased during follow-up years. On group level, a squelch effect was present in patients' best performing ear after 2 and 3 years (1.9 dB). A squelch effect was present in both ears after 3 years (AS: 1.7 dB, AD: 1.3 dB). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation developed a measurable benefit from the squelch effect after 2 years in their best performing ear and after 3 years in both ears. These observations suggest that the brain learns to use interaural differences to segregate sound from noise after simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. The squelch effect increased over time which suggests a growth in cortical integration and differentiation of inputs from bilateral CIs due to brain plasticity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.

Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant. OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI. INTERVENTIONS: The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60°, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P <.001). These results were consistent with the patients' self-reported hearing capabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.

Effect of unilateral and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus: A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus perception in patients with severe bilateral postlingual sensorineural hearing loss and to demonstrate possible differences between unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult patients were included in this prospective study, as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation versus unilateral cochlear implantation. Pre- and postoperative tinnitus perception scores were evaluated, before and 1 year after implantation on three tinnitus questionnaires; the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), and a visual analogue scale for tinnitus burden. RESULTS: Before implantation, the tinnitus prevalence was 42.1% (16 of 38) in the whole study group. One year after implantation, the tinnitus questionnaire scores had decreased in 71.4% according to the TQ and 80.0% according to the THI. Tinnitus was induced after cochlear implantation in six patients, five in the bilateral and one in the unilateral group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that cochlear implantation is effective in the reduction of tinnitus in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who suffered from preoperative tinnitus. Conversely, tinnitus may also increase or even be induced by the cochlear implantation itself. Cochlear implant candidates should be well informed about these possible consequences before undergoing surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Cost-Utility of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-utility of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) versus unilateral CI. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults eligible for cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from a health insurance perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was assessed using the HUI3, TTO, VAS on hearing, VAS on general health and EQ-5D. We modeled the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of unilateral versus bilateral CI over periods of 2, 5, 10, 25 years, and actual life-expectancy. RESULTS: Direct costs for unilateral and bilateral CI were €43,883 ±â€Š€11,513(SD) and €87,765 ±â€Š€23,027(SD) respectively. Annual costs from the second year onward were €3,435 ±â€Š€1,085(SD) and €6,871 ±â€Š€2,169(SD), respectively. A cost-utility analysis revealed that a second implant became cost-effective after a 5- to 10-year period, based on the HUI3, TTO, and VAS on hearing. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that describes a cost-utility analysis to compare unilateral with simultaneous bilateral CI in postlingually deafened adults, using a multicenter RCT. Compared with accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, simultaneous bilateral CI is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

The cost-utility of bilateral cochlear implantation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The (cost-)effectiveness and the subsequent reimbursement of bilateral cochlear implantation has been vigorously debated. Throughout the world healthcare commissioners are still struggling with the decision to reimburse bilateral implantation. Given this debate, this study's objective was to review the literature on the cost-utility of bilateral cochlear implantation in both children and adults, and study the impact of the used cost and quality-of-life estimates. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published up to December 2010. All studies reporting on cost-utility and bilateral cochlear implantation were included. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the studies, assessed with Drummond's checklist of cost-effectiveness studies, varied from poor to good. The assumptions regarding gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct costs varied among studies, resulting in a varying gain in QALY (0.38-1.93). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for bilateral cochlear implantation differed widely across studies for both children and adults (children: $30,973-$94,340; adults: $38,189-$132,160) and were inversely related to the gain in QALY, cost reductions due to simultaneous implantation, and discounts offered on the second implant. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for bilateral cochlear implantation vary widely and appear to depend on the gain in QALY due to the second implant. The results of this review confirm that more empirical data are required to estimate the cost-effectiveness of bilateral implantation.

What is the effect of time between sequential cochlear implantations on hearing in adults and children? A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Bilateral cochlear implantation is a safe and effective intervention for severe sensorineural hearing loss and is believed to be more effective than unilateral implantation. This review article investigates the effect of time between sequential cochlear implantations on hearing results in both adults and children. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of cohort studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to August 16, 2010, using the terms hearing loss, cochlear implant, delay, and their synonyms. RESULTS: Eleven studies evaluating the effect of time between sequential cochlear implantations on hearing performance were included. Although the quality of studies was poor because of a significant risk of bias, all studies reported that auditory performance is better in a bilateral listening situation than with either one cochlear implant activated unilaterally. Five studies discussed postlingually deafened adults. In four, bilateral hearing was not affected by the amount of time between implantations. One study did report a negative effect of delay on speech intelligibility in silence. Seven studies discussed prelingually deafened children. None reported a negative effect of interimplantation delay on sound localization performance. One study reported poorer results after extended intervals on speech intelligibility in silence and two in noise. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that a second implant can be beneficial even after a substantial interval between sequential implantations. The quality of the evidence is, however, rather poor; to confirm this postulation, high-quality trials assessing the effectiveness of a second cochlear implant after a time delay should be initiated.

Laryngeal tuberculosis presenting as a supraglottic carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Laryngeal tuberculosis used to be a common complication in advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. However, it has become a rare occurrence in developed countries since the introduction of antituberculous agents. Moreover, the pattern of the disease has changed over the years. Nowadays, it more closely resembles a laryngeal carcinoma than any other laryngeal illness. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of a 50-year-old Caucasian man who presented with the clinical picture of laryngeal cancer, but which turned out to be tuberculosis. We illustrate the difficulty of recognizing laryngeal tuberculosis both clinically and even with radiological examination. CONCLUSION: Although laryngeal tuberculosis is uncommon, especially in developed countries, it still occurs and should be considered as a differential diagnosis in any laryngeal disease, in particular in the case of a laryngeal carcinoma.