Choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with monaural sound-deprivation and unilateral hearing aid

Isabelle Boisvert, Björn Lyxell, Elina Mäki-Torkko, Catherine M. McMahon, Richard C. Dowell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify whether speech recognition outcomes are influenced by the choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with bilateral hearing loss who use a hearing aid in 1 ear but have long-term auditory deprivation in the other. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. Speech recognition results were examined in 30 adults with monaural sound deprivation. Fifteen received the implant in the sound-deprived ear and 15 in the aided ear. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. PATIENTS: Adults with bilateral hearing loss and a minimum of 15 years of monaural sound deprivation who received a cochlear implant after meeting the traditional implantation criteria of the referral centers. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Paired comparisons of postoperative monosyllabic word recognition scores obtained with the implant alone and in the usual listening condition (CI alone or bimodal). RESULTS: With the cochlear implant alone, individuals who received the implant in a sound-deprived ear obtained poorer scores than individuals who received the implant in the aided ear. There was no significant difference, however, in speech recognition results for the 2 groups when tested in their usual listening condition. In particular, poorer speech recognition scores were obtained with the cochlear implant alone by individuals using bimodal hearing. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation can be achieved by adults with a long-term monaural sound deprivation when comparing the usual listening condition, irrespective of whether the implant is in the sound-deprived or in the aided ear.

LanguageEnglish
Pages572-579
Number of pages8
JournalOtology and Neurotology
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Cochlear Implantation
Hearing Aids
Ear
Cochlear Implants
Bilateral Hearing Loss
Matched-Pair Analysis
United States Food and Drug Administration
Tertiary Care Centers
Hearing
Cohort Studies
Referral and Consultation
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

@article{bb346fe184e04cb78b06572f7a051753,
title = "Choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with monaural sound-deprivation and unilateral hearing aid",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To identify whether speech recognition outcomes are influenced by the choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with bilateral hearing loss who use a hearing aid in 1 ear but have long-term auditory deprivation in the other. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. Speech recognition results were examined in 30 adults with monaural sound deprivation. Fifteen received the implant in the sound-deprived ear and 15 in the aided ear. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. PATIENTS: Adults with bilateral hearing loss and a minimum of 15 years of monaural sound deprivation who received a cochlear implant after meeting the traditional implantation criteria of the referral centers. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Paired comparisons of postoperative monosyllabic word recognition scores obtained with the implant alone and in the usual listening condition (CI alone or bimodal). RESULTS: With the cochlear implant alone, individuals who received the implant in a sound-deprived ear obtained poorer scores than individuals who received the implant in the aided ear. There was no significant difference, however, in speech recognition results for the 2 groups when tested in their usual listening condition. In particular, poorer speech recognition scores were obtained with the cochlear implant alone by individuals using bimodal hearing. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation can be achieved by adults with a long-term monaural sound deprivation when comparing the usual listening condition, irrespective of whether the implant is in the sound-deprived or in the aided ear.",
author = "Isabelle Boisvert and Bj{\"o}rn Lyxell and Elina M{\"a}ki-Torkko and McMahon, {Catherine M.} and Dowell, {Richard C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182544cdb",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "572--579",
journal = "Otology and Neurotology",
issn = "1531-7129",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

Choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with monaural sound-deprivation and unilateral hearing aid. / Boisvert, Isabelle; Lyxell, Björn; Mäki-Torkko, Elina; McMahon, Catherine M.; Dowell, Richard C.

In: Otology and Neurotology, Vol. 33, No. 4, 06.2012, p. 572-579.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with monaural sound-deprivation and unilateral hearing aid

AU - Boisvert, Isabelle

AU - Lyxell, Björn

AU - Mäki-Torkko, Elina

AU - McMahon, Catherine M.

AU - Dowell, Richard C.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To identify whether speech recognition outcomes are influenced by the choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with bilateral hearing loss who use a hearing aid in 1 ear but have long-term auditory deprivation in the other. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. Speech recognition results were examined in 30 adults with monaural sound deprivation. Fifteen received the implant in the sound-deprived ear and 15 in the aided ear. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. PATIENTS: Adults with bilateral hearing loss and a minimum of 15 years of monaural sound deprivation who received a cochlear implant after meeting the traditional implantation criteria of the referral centers. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Paired comparisons of postoperative monosyllabic word recognition scores obtained with the implant alone and in the usual listening condition (CI alone or bimodal). RESULTS: With the cochlear implant alone, individuals who received the implant in a sound-deprived ear obtained poorer scores than individuals who received the implant in the aided ear. There was no significant difference, however, in speech recognition results for the 2 groups when tested in their usual listening condition. In particular, poorer speech recognition scores were obtained with the cochlear implant alone by individuals using bimodal hearing. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation can be achieved by adults with a long-term monaural sound deprivation when comparing the usual listening condition, irrespective of whether the implant is in the sound-deprived or in the aided ear.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To identify whether speech recognition outcomes are influenced by the choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with bilateral hearing loss who use a hearing aid in 1 ear but have long-term auditory deprivation in the other. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. Speech recognition results were examined in 30 adults with monaural sound deprivation. Fifteen received the implant in the sound-deprived ear and 15 in the aided ear. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. PATIENTS: Adults with bilateral hearing loss and a minimum of 15 years of monaural sound deprivation who received a cochlear implant after meeting the traditional implantation criteria of the referral centers. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Paired comparisons of postoperative monosyllabic word recognition scores obtained with the implant alone and in the usual listening condition (CI alone or bimodal). RESULTS: With the cochlear implant alone, individuals who received the implant in a sound-deprived ear obtained poorer scores than individuals who received the implant in the aided ear. There was no significant difference, however, in speech recognition results for the 2 groups when tested in their usual listening condition. In particular, poorer speech recognition scores were obtained with the cochlear implant alone by individuals using bimodal hearing. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation can be achieved by adults with a long-term monaural sound deprivation when comparing the usual listening condition, irrespective of whether the implant is in the sound-deprived or in the aided ear.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861305448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182544cdb

DO - 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182544cdb

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 572

EP - 579

JO - Otology and Neurotology

T2 - Otology and Neurotology

JF - Otology and Neurotology

SN - 1531-7129

IS - 4

ER -