Outcomes for Cochlear Implant Users With Significant Residual Hearing: Implications for Selection Criteria in Children | Cochlear Implantation | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Shallop  JKArndt  PLTurnacliff  KA Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: perceptual results in seven adults with residual hearing.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol.1992;16:141-148.Google Scholar
2.
Fraysse  BDillier  NKlenzner  T  et al Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study.  Am J Otol.1998;19:591-597.PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Blamey  PArndt  PBergeron  F  et al Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants.  Audiol Neurootol.1996;1:293-306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Dowell  RC Speech perception for adults using cochlear implants.  In: Plant  P, Spens  KE, eds.  Profound Deafness and Speech Communication. London, England: Whurr Publishers; 1995:262-284. Google Scholar
5.
Summerfield  AQMarshall  DH Preoperative predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: performance and quality of life.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl.1995;166:105-108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Gantz  BJWoodworth  GGKnutson  JFAbbas  PJTyler  RS Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1993;102:909-916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Geers  AEBrenner  CDavidson  L Factors associated with the development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five.  Ear Hear.2003;24(1, suppl):24S-35S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Dowell  RCDettman  SJBlamey  PJBarker  EJClark  GM Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long term outcomes.  Cochlear Implants Int.2002;3:1-18.Google Scholar
9.
Shea  JJDomico  EHOrchik  DJ Speech recognition as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients.  Laryngoscope.1990;100:223-226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Geier  LBarker  MFisher  LOpie  J The effect of long-term deafness on speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult CLARION cochlear implant users.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl.1999;177:80-83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Waltzman  SBCohen  NLShapiro  WH The benefits of cochlear implantation in the geriatric population.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1993;108:329-333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Buchman  CAFucci  MJLuxford  WM Cochlear implants in the geriatric popuation: benefits outweigh the risks.  Ear Nose Throat J.1999;78:489-494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Shipp  DBNedzelski  JM Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl.1995;166:194-196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Zwolan  TAZimmerman-Phillips  SAshbaugh  CJ  et al Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open set speech recognition skills.  Ear Hear.1997;18:240-251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Dawson  PWBlamey  PJRowland  LC  et al Cochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception.  J Speech Hear Res.1992;35:401-417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Boothroyd  AHanin  LHnath  T A Sentence Test of Speech Perception: Reliability, Set Equivalence and Short Term Learning: Internal Report RCI 10.  New York: Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Centre, City University of New York;1985.
17.
Peterson  GELehiste  I Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.  J Speech Hear Disord.1962;27:62-70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Skinner  MFourakis  MHolden  THolden  LDemorest  M Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies.  Ear Hear.1996;17:182-197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Plant  KLWhitford  LAPsarros  CEVandali  AE Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.  Cochlear Implants Int.2002;3:104-125.Google Scholar
20.
Ching  TYCPsarros  CHill  MDillon  HIncerti  P Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear?  Ear Hear.2001;22:365-380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Article
May 2004

Outcomes for Cochlear Implant Users With Significant Residual Hearing: Implications for Selection Criteria in Children

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Melbourne (Dr Dowell), the Cochlear Implant Clinic, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (Dr Dowell, Mr Hollow, and Ms Winton), The Bionic Ear Institute (Dr Dowell), and the Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation (Dr Dowell, Mr Hollow, and Ms Winton), East Melbourne, Australia. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):575-581. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.5.575
Abstract

Objectives  To develop an evidence-based technique for providing recommendations to candidates for cochlear implantation with significant residual hearing and to assess the efficacy of the approach.

Design  Modified selection criteria were derived from an analysis of the postoperative performance for a large group of adult cochlear implant users. In particular, the distributions of results for implant users with significant preoperative open-set speech perception were reviewed. This suggested that the candidates had a good chance (>75%) of overall improvement if they obtained open-set sentence scores in quiet of up to 70% in the best-aided condition and scores of up to 40% in the ear to undergo implantation.

Patients  A group of 45 adult implantation candidates who fit the modified criteria and who underwent preimplantation and postimplantation assessment to compare actual results with those predicted from the distributions.

Results  The speech perception results showed that 36 subjects (80%) had improved open-set sentence scores with the cochlear implant compared with their best-aided preoperative performance (mean improvement, 20.5%). Forty-four (98%) had improved open-set sentence scores for the ear undergoing implantation (mean improvement, 65.3%).

Conclusions  The general concept of using the distribution of speech perception results to make evidence-based recommendations for candidates for cochlear implants is supported by this study. The approach can be used across different subpopulations, including older children with significant residual auditory skills, and for different outcome measures. It is important that the data used to provide recommendations and modify selection criteria are from an unselected sample of implant users of adequate size. This study highlights the continuing need to evaluate speech perception performance carefully before and after cochlear implantation.

×