Download PDF
Laryngorhinootologie 2017; 96(04): 234-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-117641
Originalie
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten

Longterm Results of a Screening Procedure for Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates
Ulrich Hoppe
1   Audiologische Abteilung, Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen
,
Thomas Hocke
2   Cochlear Deutschland, Hannover, Deutschland
,
Anne Hast
1   Audiologische Abteilung, Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen
,
Joachim Hornung
3   Kopf- und Halschirurgie, HNO-Klinik, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 15 July 2016

akzeptiert 29 August 2016

Publication Date:
18 January 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Diese Studie gibt eine Abschätzung der Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten in einer Gruppe von Hörgerätenutzern.

Methodik

In einer retrospektiven Studie wurden Sprachverstehen und Hörschwelle in 185 Patienten (318 Ohren) analysiert. Die in den 2 Jahren nach ipsilateralem Screening erfolgte Behandlung des beobachteten Kollektivs wurde analysiert. Für die mit einem Cochlea-Implantat versorgten Patienten wurden die sprachaudiometrischen Ergebnisse in Beziehung zu ihrem präoperativen Sprachverstehen gesetzt.

Ergebnisse

Von den 96 Fällen, welche als Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten identifiziert worden sind, wurden 34 versorgt. Von den 222 als Hörgerätekandidaten klassifizierten Fällen kam es lediglich in 4 Fällen zu einer Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung. Versorgte Patienten mit einem präoperativen Sprachverstehen mit Hörgerät oberhalb 0% zeigten eine mittlere Verbesserung von 65 Prozentpunkten im Freiburger-Einsilber-Test.

Schlussfolgerung

Das vorgeschlagene Screeningverfahren ermöglicht ein effektives klinisches Management des Zuweisungsprozesses von Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten.

Abstract

Objective

This study gives an estimation of the long term outcome of a screening procedure for cochlear implant candidacy in hearing aid users.

Methods

In a recent retrospective study, hearing aid performance and audiometric measures in 185 subjects (318 ears) were analyzed. In the context of 2 years follow-up, the outcome of the ipsilateral screening procedure was analyzed. For patients who did receive a cochlear implant, their audiometric outcome measures were viewed into relation to their preoperative results.

Results

From the 96 ears identified as cochlear implant candidates, 34 were provided with a cochlear implant. 222 ears were identified as hearing aid users. Only 4 of these 222 ears were provided with a cochlear implant. Cochlear implant recipients with a preoperative speech recognition score with hearing aids above zero showed a mean improvement of 65% points in Freiburg monosyllabics.

Conclusion

The audiometry-based screening procedure enables an effective management of the referral process of cochlear implant candidates.

Schlüsselwörter

Cochlea-Implantat - Hörgeräte - Screening - Sprachaudiometrie - Indikationen

Key words

cochlear implants - hearing aids - screening - speech audiometry - indications
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Krüger B, Gert J, Rost U, Strauss-Schier A, Lenarz T, Büchner A. Performance groups in adults cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29: 509-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mosnier I, Marx M, Venail F, Loundon N, Roux-Vaillard S, Sterkers O. Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271: 49-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lenarz T, Stöver T, Büchner A, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Patrick J, Pesch J. Hearing conservation surgery using the hybrid-l electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the medical university of Hannover. Audiol Neurotol 2009; 14: 22-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 342-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rader T, Helbig S, Stöver T, Baumann U. Hearing preservation: Better hearing with advanced technology. Laryngorhinootologie 2014; 93: 337-349
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stolle SR, Groß S, Lenarz T, Lesinski-Schiedat A. Complications in children and adults with cochlear implant. Laryngorhinootologie 2014; 93: 605-611
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 186-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Blamey PJ, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol 1996; 1: 293-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Blamey PJ, Artieres F, Başkent D, Bergeron F, Beynon A, Burke E, Dillier N, Dowell R, Fraysse B, Gallego S, Govaerts PJ, Green K, Huber AM, Kleine-Punte A, Maat B. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurotol 2013; 18: 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T. Audiometry-based screening procedure for cochlear implant candidacy. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36: 1001-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T. Sprachverstehen mit Hörgeraten in Abhängigkeit vom Tongehör. HNO 2014; 62: 443-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 De Raeve L, Wouters J. Accessibility to cochlear implants in Belgium: State of the art on selection, reimbursement, habilitation, and outcomes in children and adults. Cochl Impl Int 2013; 14: 18-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Müller A, Hocke T, Hoppe U, Mir-Salim P. The age effect in evaluation of hearing aid benefits by speech audiometry. HNO 2016; 64: 143-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Halpin C, Rauch SD. Clinical implications of a damaged cochlea: Puretone thresholds vs. information carrying capacity. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140: 473-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zwartenkot JW, Snik AF, Mylanus EA, Mulder JJS. Amplification options for patients with mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35: 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chundu S, Buhagiar R. Audiologists’ knowledge of cochlear implant and their related referrals to the cochlear implant centre: pilot study findings from UK. Cochl Impl Int 2013; 14: 9-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Illg A, Bojanowicz M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T, Büchner A. Evaluation of the bimodal benefit in a large cohort of cochlear implant subjects using a contralateral hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35: e240-e244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 El Fata F, James C, Laborde M, Fraysse B. How much residual hearing is ‘useful’ for music perception with cochlear implants?. Audiol Neurotol 2009; 14: 14-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochl Impl Int 2009; 10 (Suppl. 01) 96-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cullington HE, Zeng F. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification. Ear Hear 2011; 32: 16-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar