Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH SLOPING HEARING LOSS
GIVEN STANDARD COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
1
Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2
HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3
Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Publication date: 2014-09-30
Corresponding author
Michelle Moran
Michelle Moran, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, 550 Swanston Street, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. Fax: +613 9347 9736. Phone: +613 9035 7996, e-mail: mmoran@unimelb.edu.au
Michelle Moran, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, 550 Swanston Street, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. Fax: +613 9347 9736. Phone: +613 9035 7996, e-mail: mmoran@unimelb.edu.au
J Hear Sci 2014;4(3):9-19
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
This study examined the speech perception outcomes for postlingually deafened adults using cochlear implants who preoperatively had steeply sloping hearing loss and in whom there was no attempt at electroacoustic stimulation. The aims were firstly to determine whether patients with sloping loss (SL) who received a standard-length cochlear implant electrode would show significant benefit; and secondly to compare the degree of benefit to a matched group of cochlear implant users with preoperative profound hearing loss.
Material and Methods:
A retrospective analysis of pre- and post-implant speech perception scores of 27 adults with sloping hearing loss and a matched group of 27 adults with profound hearing loss was conducted. Matching was based on age at implant and duration of loss. All were implanted with a Nucleus Freedom (CA) or a Nucleus 5 implant.
Results:
Postoperative open-set speech perception testing demonstrated significant improvement compared to pre-implant for both groups. Speech perception outcomes were better in the SL group; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in the degree of improvement pre- to post-operatively under either the condition of implant alone or binaurally.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that postlingually deafened adults with sloping hearing loss have the potential to gain significant benefit from cochlear implants, and achieve equivalent improvement in speech perception to implant recipients with profound loss. The results achieved in this group, without any attempt at hearing preservation, support the use of newer standard-length electrodes for both hearing preservation and optimal electric stimulation in patients with sloping hearing loss.
This study examined the speech perception outcomes for postlingually deafened adults using cochlear implants who preoperatively had steeply sloping hearing loss and in whom there was no attempt at electroacoustic stimulation. The aims were firstly to determine whether patients with sloping loss (SL) who received a standard-length cochlear implant electrode would show significant benefit; and secondly to compare the degree of benefit to a matched group of cochlear implant users with preoperative profound hearing loss.
Material and Methods:
A retrospective analysis of pre- and post-implant speech perception scores of 27 adults with sloping hearing loss and a matched group of 27 adults with profound hearing loss was conducted. Matching was based on age at implant and duration of loss. All were implanted with a Nucleus Freedom (CA) or a Nucleus 5 implant.
Results:
Postoperative open-set speech perception testing demonstrated significant improvement compared to pre-implant for both groups. Speech perception outcomes were better in the SL group; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in the degree of improvement pre- to post-operatively under either the condition of implant alone or binaurally.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that postlingually deafened adults with sloping hearing loss have the potential to gain significant benefit from cochlear implants, and achieve equivalent improvement in speech perception to implant recipients with profound loss. The results achieved in this group, without any attempt at hearing preservation, support the use of newer standard-length electrodes for both hearing preservation and optimal electric stimulation in patients with sloping hearing loss.
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Miller GA, Nicely PE. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 1955; 27(2): 338–52.
2.
Turner CW. Hearing loss and the limits of amplification. Audiol Neurootol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1): 2–5.
3.
Moore BC. Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and the implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif, 2001; 5(1): 1–34.
4.
Vinay, Moore BC. Prevalence of dead regions in subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear, 2007; 28(2): 231–41.
5.
Moore BC. Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear, 2004; 25(2): 98–116.
6.
Hogan CA, Turner CW. High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 104(1): 432–41.
7.
Turner CW, Cummings KJ. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 1999; 8(1): 47–56.
8.
Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearingimpaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 103(2): 1128–40.
9.
Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48(9): 632–44.
10.
Simpson A, McDermott HJ, Dowell RC. Benefits of audibility for listeners with severe high-frequency hearing loss. Hearing Res, 2005; 210(1–2): 42–52.
11.
Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45(11): 619–29.
12.
Kuk F, Keenan D, Korhonen P, Lau CC. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 20(8): 465–79.
13.
Buchner A, Schussler M, Battmer RD, Stover T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurootol, 2009; 14(Suppl.1): 8–13.
14.
Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Reiss L: Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2008; 45(5): 769–78.
15.
Woodson EA, Reiss LA, Turner CW, Gfeller K, Gantz BJ. The Hybrid cochlear implant: a review. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 125–34.
16.
Gstoettner WK, van de Heyning P, O’Connor AF, Morera C, Sainz M, Vermeire K et al. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Otolaryngol, 2008; 128(9): 968–75.
17.
Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Xu J, Risi F, Svehla M, Cowan R et al. Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode. Audiol Neurootol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1: 42–8.
18.
Gstoettner W, Helbig S, Settevendemie C, Baumann U, Wagenblast J, Arnoldner C. A new electrode for residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation: first clinical results. Acta Otolaryngol, 2009; 129(4): 372–9.
19.
von Ilberg CA, Baumann U, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Adunka OF. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol, 2011; 16(Suppl.2): 1–30.
20.
Kiefer J, Pok M, Adunka O et al. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurootol, 2005; 10(3): 134–44.
21.
Simpson A, McDermott HJ, Dowell RC, Sucher C, Briggs RJS. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acousticelectric stimulation. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48(2): 63–73.
22.
Incerti PV, Ching TY, Cowan R. A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes and clinical fitting practices. Trends Amplif, 2013; 17(1): 3–26.
23.
Helbig S, Baumann U, Helbig M, von Malsen-Waldkirch N, Gstoettner W. A new combined speech processor for electric and acoustic stimulation: eight months experience. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Rela Spec, 2008; 70(6): 359–65.
24.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M, Porowski M, Skarzynski PH, James CJ. Partial deafness treatment with the Nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurootol, 2012; 17(2): 82–91.
25.
Jayawardena J, Kuthubutheen J, Rajan G. Hearing preservation and hearing improvement after reimplantation of pediatric and adult patients with partial deafness: a retrospective case series review. Otol Neurotol, 2012; 33(5): 740–4.
26.
Leigh J, Hollow R, Winton E, Tari S, Dowell RC. A further update of the recommendation guidelines for cochlear implantation. Audiology Australia XIX National Conference; May 2010; Sydney, Australia 2010.
27.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear, 2010; 31(2): 186–94.
28.
Dowell RC. Evaluating cochlear implant candidacy: recent developments. Hear J, 2005; 58(11): 9–23.
29.
Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear, 1986; 7(4): 257–65.
30.
Dillon H. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J, 1999; 52(4): 12–6.
31.
Talbot KN, Hartley DE. Combined electro-acoustic stimulation: a beneficial union? Clin Otolaryngol, 2008; 33(6): 536–45.
32.
Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, 1996; 1(5): 293–306.
33.
Dowell RC, Hollow R, Winton E. Outcomes for cochlear implant users with significant residual hearing: implications for selection criteria in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2004; 130(5): 575–81.
34.
Dowell RC. Evidence about the effectiveness of cochlear implants for adults. In: Wong L, Hickson L (eds.), Evidence-Based Practice in Audiology: Evaluating Interventions for Children and Adults with Hearing Implairment. 1st ed: Plural Publishing; 2012; 141–65.
35.
Blamey P, Artieres F, Baskent D, Bergeron F, Beynon A, Burke E et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol, 2013; 18(1): 36–47.
36.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Zgoda M, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski PH, Szkielkowska A. Atraumatic round window deep insertion of cochlear electrodes. Acta Otolaryngol, 2011; 131(7): 740–9.
37.
Cosetti MK1, Friedmann DR, Zhu BZ, Heman-Ackah SE, Fang Y, Keller RG et al. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode. Otol Neurotol, 2013; 34(3): 516–21.
38.
Gfeller K, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurootol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1): 12–5.
39.
Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int, 2009; 10(Suppl.1): 96–9.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
