Patient focus groups drawn from the target population are the preferred method of identifying content areas and domains for developing the item bank for a CI-specific QOL instrument. Compared with previously used methods, the use of patient-centered item development for a CI-specific QOL instrument will more accurately reflect patient experience and increase our understanding of how CI use affects QOL.
While previous studies have demonstrated superior postoperative speech recognition scores in LW electrode array recipients, these differences lose significance when controlling for baseline hearing and speech recognition ability. These data demonstrate the proclivity for implanting individuals with greater residual hearing with LW electrodes and its impact on postoperative results.
The objective of this study was to examine how age and implanted ear contribute to functional outcomes with cochlear implantation (CI). A retrospective review was performed on 96 adults who underwent unilateral CI. Older adults with right-ear implants had higher Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) scores at 1 year by 10.3% (p = 0.06). When adjusted to rationalized arcsine units (rau), right-ear HINT scores in older adults were higher by 12.1 rau (p = 0.04). Older adults had an 8.9% advantage on the right side compared to the left in post- versus preimplant scores for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant words (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed for younger adults. In conclusion, although adults of all ages experience improvements in speech perception following CI, there might be a subtle but consistent right-ear advantage in older adults.
Objectives
To examine patterns of change and plateau in speech recognition scores in postlingually hearing impaired adult cochlear implant recipients. The study also examines variations in change patterns for different speech materials and testing conditions.
Study Design
Used systematic review with meta‐analysis.
Methods
Articles in English reporting speech recognition scores of adults with postlingual hearing loss at pre‐implantation and at least two post‐implantation time points were included. Statistically significant changes were determined by meta‐analysis and the 95% confidence interval.
Results
A total of 22 articles representing 1954 patients were included. Meta‐analysis of mean difference demonstrated significant improvements in speech recognition score for words in quiet (37.4%; 95% confidence interval [34.7%, 40.7%]), sentences in quiet (49.4%; 95% confidence interval [44.9%, 53.9%]), and sentences in noise (30.8%; 95% confidence interval [25.2%, 36.4%]) from pre‐op to 3 months. Scores continued to increase from 3 to 12 months but did not reach significance. Similarly, significant improvements from pre‐op to 3 months were observed for consonant nucleus consonant (CNC) words in quiet (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [33.8%, 40.4%]), hearing in noise test (HINT) sentences in quiet (46.5%; 95% confidence interval [37.0%, 56.0%]), AzBio sentences in quiet (45.9%; 95% confidence interval [44.2%, 47.5%]), and AzBio sentences in noise (26.4%; 95% confidence interval [18.6%, 34.2%]). HINT sentences in noise demonstrated improvement from pre‐op to 3 months (35.1%; 95% confidence interval [30.0%, 40.3%]) and from 3 to 12 months (15.5%; 95% confidence interval [7.2%, 23.8%]).
Conclusions
Mean speech recognition scores demonstrate significant improvement within the first 3 months, with no further statistically significant improvement after 3 months. However, large individual variation should be expected and future research is needed to explain the sources of these individual differences. Laryngoscope, 133:1014–1024, 2023
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.