Outcomes of visually impaired patients who received cochlear implantations

Takano, Kenichi; Kaizaki, Aya; Saikawa, Etsuko; Konnno, Ayami; Ogasawara, Nagahisa; Himi, Tetsuo

doi:10.1016/j.anl.2015.08.005

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using a case study of a 69-year man with acquired DSI, Arauz and colleagues (1997) reported that multichannel cochlear implantation improved the individual’s communication and psychosocial well-being. In another study with eight patients with severe DSI, Takano and colleagues (2016) found seven patients had positive outcomes with improved communication and quality of life post cochlear implantation. The study concluded the need for educational programs for patients on the benefits of cochlear implantation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Nine studies focused on seven tools for health care assessments and/or interventions to improve health care for older adults with DSI ( Arauz et al, 1997 ; Bruhn & Dammeyer, 2018 ; Dalby et al, 2009 ; Dupuis et al, 2015 ; Hovaldt et al, 2018 ; Roets-Merken et al, 2014 ; Takano et al, 2016 ; Urqueta Alfaro et al, 2019 ; Vreeken et al, 2020 ). Of all the tools reported, five were standardized clinical assessment instruments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cochlear implantation. Two studies supported cochlear implantation to improve functioning and rehabilitation care for older adults with DSI ( Arauz et al, 1997 ; Takano et al, 2016 ). Using a case study of a 69-year man with acquired DSI, Arauz and colleagues (1997) reported that multichannel cochlear implantation improved the individual’s communication and psychosocial well-being.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Continuum of Care for Older Adults With Concurrent Hearing and Vision Impairment: A Systematic Review

Jaiswal

Gupta

Paramasivam

et al. 2022

Innovation in Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives A global report estimates up to 2% of the world population experience concurrent hearing and vision impairment (dual sensory impairment/DSI). Older adults with DSI are often frequent users of healthcare, yet the evidence is limited to inform care delivery for this population. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence on tools and strategies for screening, assessment, and interventions that promote a continuum of care for older adults with DSI. Research Design and Methods The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. Electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries (ISRCTN Registry, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched. The quality appraisal was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results Of 4775 identified references, 28 records were selected. The review identified seven tools and seven strategies for DSI-specific screening, assessments and/or interventions. Some of the most promising tools were the interRAI Community Health Assessment (CHA) with deafblind supplement, adapted Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Severe Dual Sensory Loss (SDSL) screening tool. Useful strategies included the use of alternative forms of communication, assistive devices or technology, education and training for service providers, and training of older adults on the use and maintenance of assistive aids/technology. However, quality appraisal indicated a need for more robust evidence to inform clinical practice. Discussion and Implications Reviewed evidence pinpointed the need for training for healthcare providers on DSI-specific challenges and supports and the use of integrated multidisciplinary care for older adults. Future studies need to explore the development and evaluation of tools and interventions to improve the continuum of care for this group.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continuum of Care for Older Adults With Concurrent Hearing and Vision Impairment: A Systematic Review

Jaiswal

Gupta

Paramasivam

et al. 2022

Innovation in Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with dual sensory deficits, including hearing loss and blindness, experience a challenging situation that may affect their physical, psychological, and social performances. The visual system primarily influences the physical and spatial environment, whereas the auditory system influences social functioning in daily interactions (12,13,28). Capella-McDonnall (29) found that patients with dual sensory loss are more likely to experience symptoms of depression compared with those with no-sensory and single-sensory impairments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dual-sensory impairment (DSI) or the presence of both SNHL and vision loss is a complicated condition and its prevalence increases with age. Patients with DSI have limited choices for communication and rely primarily on tactile stimulation (12,13). It has been shown that individuals with DSIs have poorer social and physical functioning and higher rates of psychological symptoms than patients with a single-sensory impairment (i.e., auditory or vision loss alone) (14,15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Outcome of Cochlear Implantations in Deaf-Blind Patients: A Multicenter Observational Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the auditory and speech outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) in deaf-blind patients compared with deaf-only patients. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Multiple cochlear implant centers. Patients: The current study was conducted on 17 prelingual deaf-blind children and 12 postlingual deaf-blind adults who underwent CI surgery. As a control group, 17 prelingual deaf children and 12 postlingual deaf adults were selected. Intervention: Cochlear implantation. Main Outcome Measure(s): Auditory and linguistic performances in children were assessed using the categories of auditory performance (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) scales, respectively. The word recognition score (WRS) was also used to measure speech perception ability in adults. The mean CAP, SIR, and WRS cores were compared between the deaf-only and deaf-blind groups before CI surgery and at "12 months" and "24 months" after device activation. Cohen's d was used for effect size estimation. Results: We found no significant differences in the mean CAP and SIR scores between the deaf-blind and deaf-only children before the CI surgery. For both groups, SIR and CAP scores improved with increasing time after the device activation. The mean CAP scores in the deaf-only children were either equivalent or slightly higher than those of the deaf-blind children at "12 months post-CI" (3.94 ± 0.74 vs 3.24 ± 1.25; mean difference score, 0.706) and "24 months post-CI" (6.01 ± 0.79 vs 5.47 ± 1.06; mean difference score, 0.529) time intervals, but these differences were not statistically significant. The SIR scores in deaf-only implanted children were, on average, 0.870 scores greater than the deaf-blind children at "12 months post-CI" (2.94 ± 0.55 vs 2.07 ± 1.4; p = 0.01, d = 0.97) and, on average, 1.067 scores greater than deaf-blind children at "24 months post-CI" (4.35 ± 0.49 vs 3.29 ± 1.20; p = 0.002; d = 1.15) time intervals. We also found an improvement in WRS scores from the "preimplantation" to the "12-month post-CI" and "24-month post-CI" time intervals in both groups. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the mean WRS in the deaf-only adults was, on average, 10.61% better than deaf-blind implanted adults at "12 months post-CI" (62.33 ± 9.09% vs 51.71 ± 10.73%, p = 0.034, d = 1.06) and, on average, 15.81% better than deaf-blind adults at "24-months post-CI" (72.67 ± 8.66% vs 56.8 ± 9.78%, p = 0.002, d = 1.61) follow-ups. Conclusion: Cochlear implantation is a beneficial method for the rehabilitation of deaf-blind patients. Both deaf-blind and deaf-only implanted children revealed similar auditory performances. However, speech perception ability in deaf-blind patients was slightly lower than the deaf-only patients in both children and adults.

show abstract