scholarly journals Cochlear Implantation and Other Treatments in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Results of a National Multicenter Study Including a Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Mathieu Marx ◽  
Isabelle Mosnier ◽  
Frederic Venail ◽  
Michel Mondain ◽  
Alain Uziel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss ◽  
Severe Tinnitus

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Cochlear implantation is a recent approach proposed to treat single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Several cohort studies showed its effectiveness on tinnitus and variable results on binaural hearing. The main objective of this study is to assess the outcomes of cochlear implantation and other treatment options in SSD/AHL on quality of life. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 7 tertiary university hospitals and included an observational cohort study of SSD/AHL adult patients treated using contralateral routing of the signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHSs) or who declined all treatments, and a randomized controlled trial in subjects treated by cochlear implantation, after failure of CROS and BAHS trials. In total, 155 subjects with SSD or AHL, with or without associated tinnitus, were enrolled. After 2 consecutive trials with CROS hearing aids and BAHSs on headband, all subjects chose any of the 4 treatment options (abstention, CROS, BAHS, or cochlear implant [CI]). The subjects who opted for a CI were randomized between 2 arms (CI vs. initial observation). Six months after the treatment choice, quality of life was assessed using both generic (EuroQoL-5D, EQ-5D) and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices (Nijmegen Cochlear implant Questionnaire [NCIQ] and Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] for tinnitus severity). Performances for speech-in-noise recognition and localization were measured as secondary outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> CROS was chosen by 75 subjects, while 51 opted for cochlear implantation, 18 for BAHSs, and 11 for abstention. Six months after treatment, both EQ-5D VAS and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices were significantly better in the “CI” arm versus “observation” arm. The mean effect of the CI was particularly significant in subjects with associated severe tinnitus (mean improvement of 20.7 points ± 19.7 on EQ-5D VAS, 20.4 ± 12.4 on NCIQ, and 51.4 ± 35.4 on tinnitus). No significant effect of the CI was found on binaural hearing results. Before/after comparisons showed that the CROS and BAHS also improved significantly NCIQ scores (for CROS: +7.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = [4.5; 10.8]; for the BAHS: +14.3, 95% CI = [7.9; 20.7]). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Cochlear implantation leads to significant improvements in quality of life in SSD and AHL patients, particularly in subjects with associated severe tinnitus, who are thereby the best candidates to an extension of CI indications.

scholarly journals Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A New Treatment Paradigm

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (02) ◽  
pp. 178-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Zeitler ◽  
Michael Dorman
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Music Appreciation ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Treatment Paradigm ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

AbstractUnilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), also known as single sided deafness (SSD), is a problem that affects both children and adults, and can have severe and detrimental effects on multiple aspects of life including music appreciation, speech understanding in noise, speech and language acquisition, performance in the classroom and/or the workplace, and quality of life. Additionally, the loss of binaural hearing in SSD patients affects those processes that rely on two functional ears including sound localization, binaural squelch and summation, and the head shadow effect. Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in cochlear implantation for SSD to restore binaural hearing. Early data are promising that cochlear implantation for SSD can help to restore binaural functionality, improve quality of life, and may faciliate reversal of neuroplasticity related to auditory deprivation in the pediatric population. Additionally, this new patient population has allowed researchers the opportunity to investigate the age-old question “what does a cochlear implant (CI) sound like?.”

Cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness: generic and disease-specific long-term quality of life

2019 ◽  
Vol 277 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Muigg ◽  
Harald R. Bliem ◽  
Heike Kühn ◽  
Josef Seebacher ◽  
Bernhard Holzner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Disease Specific

Transcranial Contralateral Cochlear Stimulation in Unilateral Deafness

2003 ◽  
Vol 129 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack J. Wazen ◽  
Jaclyn B. Spitzer ◽  
Soha N. Ghossaini ◽  
José N. Fayad ◽  
John K. Niparko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Auditory Stimuli ◽  
Unilateral Deafness ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Speech Reception Thresholds ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Bone Anchored Cochlear Stimulator (BAHA) in transcranial routing of signal by implanting the deaf ear. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Eighteen patients with unilateral deafness were included in a multisite study. They had a 1-month pre-implantation trial with a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid. Their performance with BAHA was compared with the CROS device using speech reception thresholds, speech recognition performance in noise, and the Abbreviated Profile Hearing Benefit and Single Sided Deafness questionnaires. RESULTS: Patients reported a significant improvement in speech intelligibility in noise and greater benefit from BAHA compared with CROS hearing aids. Patients were satisfied with the device and its impact on their quality of life. No major complications were reported. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: BAHA is effective in unilateral deafness. Auditory stimuli from the deaf side can be transmitted to the good ear, avoiding the limitations inherent in CROS amplification.

scholarly journals ORAL HEALTH

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (07) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naveed Inayat ◽  
Gotam Das ◽  
Muhammad Haseeb Rana ◽  
Dr Reehana ◽  
Nadia Munir
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Percentage Decrease ◽  
Clinical Observations ◽  
Dental Hospital ◽  
Group 2

Objective: To compare the percentage decrease in score of Oral healthrelated quality of life in patients provided with removable and fixed partial dentures. Evaluationof Prosthodontic treatment is made on the basis of clinical observations or from the patientsatisfaction1.tooth loss deteriorates the psychological, functional and social status of anindividual. OHRQoL has been considered as a tool for measurement of consequences of toothloss and available treatment options. Quality of life is influenced by use of removable partialdentures or fixed partial dentures which may also deteriorate oral functions. Setting: Departmentof Prosthodontic, de’Montmorency College of Dentistry/Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore. StudyDesign: Randomized Controlled Trial. Period: 07th May 2011 to 07th November 2011. Method:Total 60 partially dentate subjects with two teeth missing in either dental arch recruited fromOPD of department of Prosthodontic, de’Montmorency College of Dentistry/Punjab DentalHospital, Lahore. They were divided equally into two groups (Group 1=30 subjects for RPR,Group 2=30 subjects for FPD). All the subjects were given OHIP-14 questionnaire to measurethe OHRQoL before treatment and one month after the provision of prosthesis. Before and aftertreatment scores were recorded on 5 points Lickert scale and coded as +0=never,1=hardlyever,3=occasionally,4=fairly often,5=very often. The scores on Lickert scale were inverselyproportional to the improvement in OHRQoL. Results: Subject with FPD group showed markeddecrease in percentage of OHRQoL after the provision of prosthesis. In comparison with FPDpercentage decrease in OHRQoL was less pronounced in RPD group. There was 62.84%reduction in OHRQoL score who were randomized in removable partial dentures while 90.53%reduction was observed in OHRQoL score who were randomized in fixed partial dentures. Thisshowed that fixed partial dentures are more effective in improving quality of life of patients withpartial dentations. Conclusion: Subjects with FPD showed marked decrease in percentageof OHRQoL; suggest that FPD influenced their social, psychological and functional status in amore positive way as compared to the subjects provided with RPD.

Postlingually Deaf Adults of All Ages Derive Equal Benefits from Unilateral Multichannel Cochlear Implant

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 637-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Park ◽  
David B. Shipp ◽  
Joseph M. Chen ◽  
Julian M. Nedzelski ◽  
Vincent Y.W. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Life ◽  
Deaf Adults

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.

Impact of Underlying Diagnosis on Speech and Quality of Life Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. e432-e440
Author(s):  
Tiffany Peng Hwa ◽  
Joshua J. Sturm ◽  
Tasher Losenegger ◽  
Abby Owen ◽  
Megan Kuhlmey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

scholarly journals The Sophono Bone-Conduction System: Surgical, Audiologic, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
pp. E28-E33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Mclean ◽  
Irumee Pai ◽  
Andrew Philipatos ◽  
Michael Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Conductive Hearing

We prospectively evaluated the surgical, audiologic, and quality-of-life outcomes in 5 patients—2 men and 3 women, aged 22 to 64 years (mean: 41.8)—who were implanted with the Sophono Alpha 2 MPO Processor. The indications for implantation of this bone-conduction device included recurrent ear canal infections with hearing aids (n = 3), single-sided deafness (n = 1), and patient preference in view of difficulty using a conventional hearing aid (n = 1). In addition to the patient with single-sided deafness, 3 patients had a bilateral mixed hearing loss and 1 had a bilateral conductive hearing loss. Outcomes measures included surgical complications, functional gain (FG), speech discrimination in quiet and noise, and patient satisfaction as determined by the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Entific Medical Systems bone-anchored hearing aid questionnaire (BAQ). The only postsurgical complication noted was a minor skin reaction and pain in 1 patient that resolved with conservative management. In the 3 patients with the mixed hearing loss, the mean FG was 13.3, 20.0, 11.7, and 11.7 dB at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, respectively; in the patient with the bilateral conductive hearing loss, the FG was 10, 25, 10, and 15 dB at the same frequencies. Speech discrimination scores with the Sophono device were comparable to those seen with conventional hearing aids. After implantation, all 5 patients experienced a positive quality-of-life outcome according to the GBI, although 1 of them had only a marginal improvement. On follow-up, all patients reported that they remained satisfied with their implant and that they used their device all day long. We conclude that the Sophono bone-conduction system is a safe and effective option that should be considered for patients with a mixed or conductive hearing loss who are unable to use a conventional hearing aid, as well as for those with single-sided deafness.

scholarly journals Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 391-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Van de Heyning ◽  
Dayse Távora-Vieira ◽  
Griet Mertens ◽  
Vincent Van Rompaey ◽  
Gunesh P. Rajan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Impact

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document