Bimodal cochlear implantation in elderly patients

Mancini, Patrizia; D'Alessandro, Hilal Dinçer; Portanova, Ginevra; Atturo, Francesca; Russo, Francesca; Greco, Antonio; Vincentiis, Marco de; Giallini, Ilaria; Seta, Daniele De

doi:10.1080/14992027.2020.1843080

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both HA and CI fittings were individually controlled for each recipients before testing. Most comfortable levels of CI and HA were balanced and confirmed to be appropriate when listening bimodally/bilaterally to avoid any discomfort due to loudness summation effects ( Mancini et al, 2021 ). The audiological assessment was performed in a sound-proof audiometric chamber through an Aurical audiometer (Otometrics Taastrup, Denmark) connected to two loudspeakers placed at 0° azimuth at a 1-m distance from the participant’s head.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…All subjects involved in the study were able to complete the speech perception test in quiet, with scores ranging from 0 to 100%, while up to 30% of subjects could not complete the test in noise, which was particularly evident for the Matrix sentence test. In this respect, the Matrix test is semantically more complex when compared to everyday semantically predictable sentences ( Mancini et al, 2021 ), which might have influenced the scores and the percentage of patients able to complete the test. Furthermore, in the present study, the duration of HL was, on average, 36 years, and the effect of duration of deafness has been shown to be strongly inversely correlated to hearing outcomes, especially when subjects were tested in noise ( Mosnier et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of the “Active Communication Education” Program on Hearing-Related Quality of Life in a Group of Italian Older Adults Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe present study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Active Communication Education (ACE) program on the social/emotional impacts of hearing loss (HL) in a group of older adults with a cochlear implant (CI).DesignProspective cohort study design, with a “within-subject” control procedure.Study SampleTwenty adults over-65 post-lingually deafened CI users. All subjects were required to be native Italian speakers, to have normal cognitive level, have no significant psychiatric conditions and/or diagnosed incident dementia, and used CI for at least 9 months.Materials and MethodsTwenty participants were assessed using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) before, during, and after ACE program, with a one and 6-month follow up. The cognitive and audiological evaluation was carried out before commencing the ACE program.ResultsThe ACE program had a positive impact by reducing HL’s social/emotional effects. Participants benefited from a rehabilitative approach by improving multilevel skills: comprehension of audiological and hearing dimensions, acquisition of communicative, pragmatic and problem-solving strategies, and interaction and sharing of experiences with peers.ConclusionAlthough targeting the older adults with moderate HL, the ACE program also seemed to benefit older adult CI users. An improvement in social and emotional adaptation to hearing difficulties can, in turn, significantly promote optimal use of CI in the older adults, thereby possibly reducing the risk of losing motivation and engagement in device use and in rehabilitation protocols.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the “Active Communication Education” Program on Hearing-Related Quality of Life in a Group of Italian Older Adults Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future research should examine delayed recall abilities and apply the ISDA to other groups of CI users such as those with lower speech perception performance (Moberly et al, 2016), single sided deafness (SSD; Sharma et al, 2016), and younger participants (Cartocci et al, 2019) to further explore the validity of these constructs. Although our sample size is not atypical of research surrounding CIs (Moberly et al, 2018;Sladen et al, 2018;Mancini et al, 2020;Zhan et al, 2020), this may have limited our ability to detect smaller differences in performance and may have contributed to a lack of relationship between the MoCA and CVLT-3 measures. While the ISDA has been used in other clinical populations (Wright et al, 2009(Wright et al, , 2010Cattie et al, 2012;Oltra-Cucarella et al, 2014;Tayim et al, 2016;Basso et al, 2021), this was the first study to apply the ISDA scoring method to a CI population, and thus this study offers an additional set of constructs, rarely used in previous CI studies, to describe delayed recall abilities in this population.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Recent studies using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggest delayed recall is challenging for cochlear implant (CI) users. To better understand the underlying processes associated with delayed recall in CI users, we administered the MoCA and the California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition (CVLT-3), which provides a more comprehensive assessment of delayed recall ability.Methods: The MoCA and CVLT-3 were administered to 18 high-performing CI users. For the CVLT-3, both the traditional scoring and a newer scoring method, the Item-Specific Deficit Approach (ISDA), were employed.Results: The original MoCA score and MoCA delayed recall subtest score did not relate to performance on any CVLT-3 measures regardless of scoring metric applied (i.e., traditional or ISDA). Encoding performance for both the CVLT-3 and ISDA were related. Consolidation, which is only distinctly defined by the ISDA, related to CVLT-3 cued delay recall performance but not free delay recall performance. Lastly, ISDA retrieval only related to CVLT-3 measures when modified.Conclusion: Performance on the MoCA and CVLT-3 in a high performing CI patient population were not related. We demonstrate that the ISDA can be successfully applied to CI users for the quantification and characterization of delayed recall ability; however, future work addressing lower performing CI users, and comparing to normal hearing controls is needed to determine the extent of potential translational applications. Our work also indicates that a modified ISDA retrieval score may be beneficial for evaluating CI users although additional work addressing the clinical relevance of this is still needed.

show abstract

“…3,4 This finding of bimodal benefit has been verified by others. [5][6][7][8] The Hybrid and EAS studies demonstrated to clinicians that placement of a CI in a patient with better hearing in the contralateral ear resulted in overall improvements in speech recognition, even when tested in noise. Clinicians quickly learned to apply testing in noise procedures to patients who were not Hybrid or EAS candidates but who had greater aidable hearing in the contralateral ear than patients in the past.…”

Section: Landmark Changes In Fda Approvalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults: Limitations, Expansions, and Opportunities for Improvement

Zwolan

Basura

2021

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The safety, efficacy, and success of cochlear implants (CIs) are well established and have led to changes in criteria used by clinicians to determine who should receive a CI. Such changes in clinical decision-making have out-paced the slower-occurring changes that have taken place with regulatory bodies' and insurers' indications. We review the historical development of indications for CIs, including those of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. We report on expansion to include patients with greater residual hearing, such as those who receive Hybrid and EAS devices, and report on recent FDA approvals that place less emphasis on the patient's best-aided condition and greater emphasis on the ear to be treated. This includes expansion of CIs to patients with single-side deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. We review changes in the test materials used to determine candidacy, including transition from sentences in quiet to sentences in noise to the recent use of monosyllabic words and cognitive screening measures. Importantly, we discuss the recent trend to recommend CIs despite a patient not meeting FDA or insurers' indications (a practice known as “off-label”), which serves as attestation that current indications need to be updated.

show abstract

Bimodal cochlear implantation in elderly patients

Cited by 12 publications

References 52 publications

Effects of the “Active Communication Education” Program on Hearing-Related Quality of Life in a Group of Italian Older Adults Cochlear Implant Users

Effects of the “Active Communication Education” Program on Hearing-Related Quality of Life in a Group of Italian Older Adults Cochlear Implant Users

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults: Limitations, Expansions, and Opportunities for Improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About