Speech Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation, from 1983 to Present: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Otology & Neurotology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000004468
Nia S Brown, Sanjena Venkatesh, Tazheh A Kavoosi, James O Onyeukwu, Jason A Brant, Alexandra E Quimby
{"title":"Speech Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation, from 1983 to Present: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Nia S Brown, Sanjena Venkatesh, Tazheh A Kavoosi, James O Onyeukwu, Jason A Brant, Alexandra E Quimby","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We sought to assess whether the totality of advancements seen in cochlear implant (CI) design and implementation have translated to significant improvements in speech perception scores.</p><p><strong>Databases reviewed: </strong>EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of all English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals from 1946 to August 2022 was performed based on the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were of adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation with Cochlear®, Med-EL, or Advanced Bionics devices with 12 months postoperative sentence recognition testing results. Meta-regression was performed to assess the relationship between speech recognition score and year of implantation. Preimplantation score and unilateral versus bilateral implantation were adjusted for. Subgroup analysis was performed by restricting to studies of <5 years duration and in which outcomes were measured ≤12 months postoperatively to reduce the likelihood of patients with remotely implanted devices having undergone upgrades to more contemporary coding software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 studies met criteria for inclusion, representing CIs implanted between 1983 and 2019. No significant association was identified between median study year and scores on 12-month postoperative sentence recognition testing on any of AzBio in quiet, CNC words, or HINT sentences in quiet. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in outcomes across 15 studies including patients implanted from 2007 to 2019.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the absence of improved CI coding strategies since 2007, speech recognition outcomes in quiet have also not improved significantly since this time.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":"46 4","pages":"393-404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004468","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We sought to assess whether the totality of advancements seen in cochlear implant (CI) design and implementation have translated to significant improvements in speech perception scores.

Databases reviewed: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Methods: A systematic review of all English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals from 1946 to August 2022 was performed based on the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were of adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation with Cochlear®, Med-EL, or Advanced Bionics devices with 12 months postoperative sentence recognition testing results. Meta-regression was performed to assess the relationship between speech recognition score and year of implantation. Preimplantation score and unilateral versus bilateral implantation were adjusted for. Subgroup analysis was performed by restricting to studies of <5 years duration and in which outcomes were measured ≤12 months postoperatively to reduce the likelihood of patients with remotely implanted devices having undergone upgrades to more contemporary coding software.

Results: A total of 37 studies met criteria for inclusion, representing CIs implanted between 1983 and 2019. No significant association was identified between median study year and scores on 12-month postoperative sentence recognition testing on any of AzBio in quiet, CNC words, or HINT sentences in quiet. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in outcomes across 15 studies including patients implanted from 2007 to 2019.

Conclusion: In the absence of improved CI coding strategies since 2007, speech recognition outcomes in quiet have also not improved significantly since this time.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
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