Citations 2
Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy
Sladen, Douglas P. , Gifford, René H. , Haynes, David S. , Kelsall, David C., Benson, Aaron G., Zwolan, Teresa A. , Gantz, Bruce J. , Gilden, Jan, Westerberg, Brian D. , Gustin, Cindy, Driscoll, Colin L. W., Driscoll, Colin L., Lewis, Kristen, Fu, Qian‐Jie , O’Neil, Lori Ross
The Laryngoscope | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 127 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2368-2374
ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long‐term benefit for cochlear implantation.Study DesignProspective multi‐center single‐subject design.MethodsA total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant‐nucleus‐consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre‐ and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index.ResultsPerformance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12‐month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation.ConclusionResults of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long‐term postoperative speech recognition performance.Level of Evidence2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368–2374, 2017
Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial
Bałkany, Thomas J., Hodges, Annelle V., Menapace, Christine, Hazard, Linda, Driscoll, Colin L. W., Gantz, Bruce J. , Kelsall, David C., Luxford, William M., McMenomy, Sean, Neely, J. Gail, Peters, B. Robert, Pillsbury, Harold C., Roberson, Joseph, Schramm, David , Telian, Steven A., Westerberg, Brian D. , Payne, Stacy L., Waltzman, Susan B.
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | May 1, 2007 | Volume: 136 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 757-762
OBJECTIVETo evaluate hearing outcomes and effects of stimulation rate on performance with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (Cochlear Americas, Denver, CO).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGRandomized, controlled, prospective, single‐blind clinical study using single‐subject repeated measures (A‐B‐A‐B) design at 14 academic centers in the United States and Canada and comparison with outcomes of a prior device by the same manufacturer.PATIENTSSeventy‐one severely/profoundly hearing impaired adults.RESULTSSeventy‐one adult recipients were randomly programmed in two different sets of rate: ACE or higher rate ACE RE. Mean scores for Consonant Nucleus Consonant words is 57%, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in quiet 78%, and HINT sentences in noise 64%. Sixty‐seven percent of subjects preferred slower rates of stimulation, and performance did not improve with higher rates of stimulation using this device.CONCLUSIONSSubjects performed well, and there was no advantage to higher stimulation rates with this device.SIGNIFICANCEHigher stimulation rates do not necessarily result in improved performance.