Bilateral Cochlear Implants and Bimodal Hearing: A Comparison of Quality of Life.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1791217
Jessica H Lewis, Irina Castellanos, Terrin N Tamati, Aaron C Moberly
{"title":"Bilateral Cochlear Implants and Bimodal Hearing: A Comparison of Quality of Life.","authors":"Jessica H Lewis, Irina Castellanos, Terrin N Tamati, Aaron C Moberly","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1791217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> Despite significant advances in the field of cochlear implants (CIs), there is no widely accepted criterion for when to counsel on bilateral CIs in adults. This is partly due to conflicting findings on the advantages of bilateral CIs versus bimodal hearing (i.e., CI with a contralateral hearing aid). Because of this, clinicians rely on a poorly defined combination of clinical measures and patient discussion to evaluate a patient's listening needs and preferences. Patients' needs and preferences are often used to guide recommendations on whether bilateral CIs or bimodal hearing is best for that individual, suggesting that an in-depth comparison of each group's self-reported outcomes is warranted.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong> Given the limited number of studies directly comparing quality of life (QoL) in bimodal and bilateral patients, the current study conducted a preliminary comparison of self-reported outcomes to better understand patient-reported benefits of each listening configuration.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong> This was a between-subjects comparison.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong> Fifteen bimodal and nine bilateral adult CI users made the study sample.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong> Participants completed the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) Profile 35. For group comparison purposes, monosyllabic word recognition and nonverbal intelligence were measured. Independent samples <i>t</i>-tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections were used to compare bimodal and bilateral patients across domains of the CIQOL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Bilateral CI users self-reported better environmental, emotional, social, and global QoL when compared to bimodal users. The groups did not differ on age, nonverbal intelligence, speech recognition abilities, and duration of hearing loss; however, bimodal users had less experience listening with their CI than the bilateral CI users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Bilateral CI users showed widespread advantages in QoL when compared to bimodal users. Bilateral CI users self-reported significantly better environmental QoL which conflicts with previous in-lab and self-report results suggesting a bimodal advantage. Additionally, due to a lack of current literature, it is unclear why a bilateral advantage is observed for emotional and social QoL. Results of the current study not only provide additional support on the benefits of bilateral implantation but also stress the need to further explore the self-reported benefits of each listening configuration.</p>","PeriodicalId":50021,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"127-134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791217","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  Despite significant advances in the field of cochlear implants (CIs), there is no widely accepted criterion for when to counsel on bilateral CIs in adults. This is partly due to conflicting findings on the advantages of bilateral CIs versus bimodal hearing (i.e., CI with a contralateral hearing aid). Because of this, clinicians rely on a poorly defined combination of clinical measures and patient discussion to evaluate a patient's listening needs and preferences. Patients' needs and preferences are often used to guide recommendations on whether bilateral CIs or bimodal hearing is best for that individual, suggesting that an in-depth comparison of each group's self-reported outcomes is warranted.

Purpose:  Given the limited number of studies directly comparing quality of life (QoL) in bimodal and bilateral patients, the current study conducted a preliminary comparison of self-reported outcomes to better understand patient-reported benefits of each listening configuration.

Research design:  This was a between-subjects comparison.

Study sample:  Fifteen bimodal and nine bilateral adult CI users made the study sample.

Data collection and analysis:  Participants completed the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) Profile 35. For group comparison purposes, monosyllabic word recognition and nonverbal intelligence were measured. Independent samples t-tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections were used to compare bimodal and bilateral patients across domains of the CIQOL.

Results:  Bilateral CI users self-reported better environmental, emotional, social, and global QoL when compared to bimodal users. The groups did not differ on age, nonverbal intelligence, speech recognition abilities, and duration of hearing loss; however, bimodal users had less experience listening with their CI than the bilateral CI users.

Conclusion:  Bilateral CI users showed widespread advantages in QoL when compared to bimodal users. Bilateral CI users self-reported significantly better environmental QoL which conflicts with previous in-lab and self-report results suggesting a bimodal advantage. Additionally, due to a lack of current literature, it is unclear why a bilateral advantage is observed for emotional and social QoL. Results of the current study not only provide additional support on the benefits of bilateral implantation but also stress the need to further explore the self-reported benefits of each listening configuration.

双侧人工耳蜗和双模听力:生活质量的比较。
背景:尽管人工耳蜗(CIs)领域取得了重大进展,但对于成人何时进行双侧人工耳蜗的咨询并没有广泛接受的标准。这部分是由于关于双侧CI与双侧听力(即CI与对侧助听器)的优势的相互矛盾的发现。正因为如此,临床医生依靠不明确的临床测量和患者讨论的组合来评估患者的倾听需求和偏好。患者的需求和偏好通常用于指导建议双侧CIs或双峰听力是否最适合该个体,这表明对每组自我报告的结果进行深入比较是有必要的。目的:考虑到直接比较双峰和双侧患者生活质量(QoL)的研究数量有限,本研究对自我报告的结果进行了初步比较,以更好地了解每种听力配置的患者报告的益处。研究设计:本研究为受试者间比较。研究样本:15名双峰和9名双侧成人CI用户构成研究样本。数据收集和分析:参与者完成了人工耳蜗生活质量(CIQOL)概况35。为了进行群体比较,测量了单音节单词识别和非语言智力。采用Holm-Bonferroni校正的独立样本t检验比较双峰和双侧患者在CIQOL各领域的差异。结果:与双通道用户相比,双通道CI用户自我报告的环境、情感、社会和整体生活质量更好。两组在年龄、非语言智力、语音识别能力和听力损失持续时间上没有差异;然而,双模态用户比双模态用户有更少的倾听经验。结论:与双峰CI使用者相比,双侧CI使用者在生活质量方面表现出广泛的优势。双边CI用户自我报告的环境质量明显更好,这与之前的实验室和自我报告结果相冲突,表明双峰优势。此外,由于缺乏当前的文献,目前尚不清楚为什么观察到情感和社会生活质量的双边优势。目前的研究结果不仅为双侧植入的好处提供了额外的支持,而且强调了进一步探索每种听力配置的自我报告好处的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (JAAA) is the Academy''s scholarly peer-reviewed publication, issued 10 times per year and available to Academy members as a benefit of membership. The JAAA publishes articles and clinical reports in all areas of audiology, including audiological assessment, amplification, aural habilitation and rehabilitation, auditory electrophysiology, vestibular assessment, and hearing science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信