Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing

Michelle L. Hughes, Donna L. Neff, Jeffrey L. Simmons, Mary Pat Moeller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cochlear implant (CI) recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing obtained more benefit from a CI than from a hearing aid (HA). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective records review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven CI recipients (11 children/teens, 26 adults) were identified that met the following inclusion criteria: preimplant sentence recognition scores greater than 50% correct in the implanted ear or greater than 60% in the best-aided/binaural condition (Group 1, n = 18); audiometric thresholds less than 70 dB HL at 2 or more frequencies (i.e., better than a severe-profound hearing loss; Group 2, n = 13 ears in 12 recipients), or those that met both the audiometric and sentence-recognition criteria (Group 3, n = 7). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postimplant speech-perception scores. RESULTS: Postimplant speech perception was substantially better than the preimplant performance for 12 of 18 recipients in Group 1, 10 of 12 recipients (11/13 ears) in Group 2, and 5 of 7 recipients in Group 3 (total, 73.7%). Five recipients (13.1%) showed no change from preimplant performance levels. Results were inconclusive for 2 recipients (5.3%) because preimplant versus postimplant testing was conducted in different conditions. Three recipients (7.9%) exhibited decreased performance postimplant. CONCLUSION: For most recipients whose hearing was better than that defined by traditional candidacy criteria, performance improved with the CI. These results may help clinicians guide candidates in the decision-making process by providing information on the range of outcomes for recipients with similar preimplant performance levels, identify the need for additional preimplant counseling regarding expectations, and recognize the importance of systematizing preimplant and postimplant testing for longitudinal assessment of performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1373-1384
Number of pages12
JournalOtology and Neurotology
Volume35
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2014

Fingerprint

Cochlear Implants
Hearing
Ear
Speech Perception
Hearing Aids
Hearing Loss
Tertiary Care Centers
Counseling
Decision Making
Recognition (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Borderline candidates
  • Cochlear implant
  • Outcomes
  • Speech perception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing. / Hughes, Michelle L.; Neff, Donna L.; Simmons, Jeffrey L.; Moeller, Mary Pat.

In: Otology and Neurotology, Vol. 35, No. 8, 09.2014, p. 1373-1384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hughes, Michelle L. ; Neff, Donna L. ; Simmons, Jeffrey L. ; Moeller, Mary Pat. / Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing. In: Otology and Neurotology. 2014 ; Vol. 35, No. 8. pp. 1373-1384.
@article{acd387de034747c3b8736c454bacc97a,
title = "Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cochlear implant (CI) recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing obtained more benefit from a CI than from a hearing aid (HA). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective records review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven CI recipients (11 children/teens, 26 adults) were identified that met the following inclusion criteria: preimplant sentence recognition scores greater than 50{\%} correct in the implanted ear or greater than 60{\%} in the best-aided/binaural condition (Group 1, n = 18); audiometric thresholds less than 70 dB HL at 2 or more frequencies (i.e., better than a severe-profound hearing loss; Group 2, n = 13 ears in 12 recipients), or those that met both the audiometric and sentence-recognition criteria (Group 3, n = 7). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postimplant speech-perception scores. RESULTS: Postimplant speech perception was substantially better than the preimplant performance for 12 of 18 recipients in Group 1, 10 of 12 recipients (11/13 ears) in Group 2, and 5 of 7 recipients in Group 3 (total, 73.7{\%}). Five recipients (13.1{\%}) showed no change from preimplant performance levels. Results were inconclusive for 2 recipients (5.3{\%}) because preimplant versus postimplant testing was conducted in different conditions. Three recipients (7.9{\%}) exhibited decreased performance postimplant. CONCLUSION: For most recipients whose hearing was better than that defined by traditional candidacy criteria, performance improved with the CI. These results may help clinicians guide candidates in the decision-making process by providing information on the range of outcomes for recipients with similar preimplant performance levels, identify the need for additional preimplant counseling regarding expectations, and recognize the importance of systematizing preimplant and postimplant testing for longitudinal assessment of performance.",
keywords = "Borderline candidates, Cochlear implant, Outcomes, Speech perception",
author = "Hughes, {Michelle L.} and Neff, {Donna L.} and Simmons, {Jeffrey L.} and Moeller, {Mary Pat}",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/MAO.0000000000000367",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "1373--1384",
journal = "Otology and Neurotology",
issn = "1531-7129",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance outcomes for borderline cochlear implant recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing

AU - Hughes, Michelle L.

AU - Neff, Donna L.

AU - Simmons, Jeffrey L.

AU - Moeller, Mary Pat

PY - 2014/9

Y1 - 2014/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cochlear implant (CI) recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing obtained more benefit from a CI than from a hearing aid (HA). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective records review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven CI recipients (11 children/teens, 26 adults) were identified that met the following inclusion criteria: preimplant sentence recognition scores greater than 50% correct in the implanted ear or greater than 60% in the best-aided/binaural condition (Group 1, n = 18); audiometric thresholds less than 70 dB HL at 2 or more frequencies (i.e., better than a severe-profound hearing loss; Group 2, n = 13 ears in 12 recipients), or those that met both the audiometric and sentence-recognition criteria (Group 3, n = 7). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postimplant speech-perception scores. RESULTS: Postimplant speech perception was substantially better than the preimplant performance for 12 of 18 recipients in Group 1, 10 of 12 recipients (11/13 ears) in Group 2, and 5 of 7 recipients in Group 3 (total, 73.7%). Five recipients (13.1%) showed no change from preimplant performance levels. Results were inconclusive for 2 recipients (5.3%) because preimplant versus postimplant testing was conducted in different conditions. Three recipients (7.9%) exhibited decreased performance postimplant. CONCLUSION: For most recipients whose hearing was better than that defined by traditional candidacy criteria, performance improved with the CI. These results may help clinicians guide candidates in the decision-making process by providing information on the range of outcomes for recipients with similar preimplant performance levels, identify the need for additional preimplant counseling regarding expectations, and recognize the importance of systematizing preimplant and postimplant testing for longitudinal assessment of performance.

AB - OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cochlear implant (CI) recipients with substantial preoperative residual hearing obtained more benefit from a CI than from a hearing aid (HA). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective records review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven CI recipients (11 children/teens, 26 adults) were identified that met the following inclusion criteria: preimplant sentence recognition scores greater than 50% correct in the implanted ear or greater than 60% in the best-aided/binaural condition (Group 1, n = 18); audiometric thresholds less than 70 dB HL at 2 or more frequencies (i.e., better than a severe-profound hearing loss; Group 2, n = 13 ears in 12 recipients), or those that met both the audiometric and sentence-recognition criteria (Group 3, n = 7). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postimplant speech-perception scores. RESULTS: Postimplant speech perception was substantially better than the preimplant performance for 12 of 18 recipients in Group 1, 10 of 12 recipients (11/13 ears) in Group 2, and 5 of 7 recipients in Group 3 (total, 73.7%). Five recipients (13.1%) showed no change from preimplant performance levels. Results were inconclusive for 2 recipients (5.3%) because preimplant versus postimplant testing was conducted in different conditions. Three recipients (7.9%) exhibited decreased performance postimplant. CONCLUSION: For most recipients whose hearing was better than that defined by traditional candidacy criteria, performance improved with the CI. These results may help clinicians guide candidates in the decision-making process by providing information on the range of outcomes for recipients with similar preimplant performance levels, identify the need for additional preimplant counseling regarding expectations, and recognize the importance of systematizing preimplant and postimplant testing for longitudinal assessment of performance.

KW - Borderline candidates

KW - Cochlear implant

KW - Outcomes

KW - Speech perception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84906078349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84906078349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000367

DO - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000367

M3 - Article

C2 - 24662626

AN - SCOPUS:84906078349

VL - 35

SP - 1373

EP - 1384

JO - Otology and Neurotology

JF - Otology and Neurotology

SN - 1531-7129

IS - 8

ER -