Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation

Adunka, Oliver F.; Gantz, Bruce J.; Dunn, Camille; Gurgel, Richard K.; Buchman, Craig A.

doi:10.1177/0194599818764329

Cited by 78 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From this scoping review, recorded monosyllabic words (scored at the full word level), sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise (+10dB SNR), presented at a level of 65dB SPL (60dBA) from a single loudspeaker in front of the participant were the most commonly used tests. This is aligned with recommendations proposed by Adunka et al [47].…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation has become known as "the treatment of choice" for adults with severe to profound hearing loss. Wide variability exists, however, in the way hearing loss severity is measured and in the candidacy criteria used to recommend cochlear implantation. ObjectivesThis study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of recent evidence available in the literature in relation to the efficacy of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults, the general findings of these studies, and the populations to which these findings apply. It also aimed to appraise the individual success rate and the magnitude of benefit following implantation. DesignA scoping review was conducted to identify English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2018 assessing the outcomes of cochlear implantation in adults who received their first cochlear implant from 2000 onwards. To be included, studies had to report speech perception or self-reported measures of listening or quality of life at least three months after implantation. Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar. A two-stage screening approach was used, with seven reviewers independently screening titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria and three from this group further reviewing full-texts. A data charting form was developed and trialled, with 10% of the study data extracted in duplicate to compare results and further refine the form. Data relevant for efficacy analyses were extracted from studies with sample sizes of at least 10 participants. ResultsA total of 4182 abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, and of these, 603 fulltexts were further screened. After exclusion of non-eligible articles, 201 articles were included in the first part of this scoping review. The majority of these articles were case series or comparative studies without a concurrent group, and had small sample sizes. Data PLOS ONECompeting interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. synthesis conducted with the 102 articles with more than 10 participants highlighted that the average word perception ability improved from 8.2% to 53.9% after implantation. Selfreported benefit improved by 21.5 percentage points. At the individual level, 82.0% of adults with postlingual hearing loss and 53.4% of adults with prelingual hearing loss improved their speech perception ability by 15 percentage points or more. A small proportion had poorer ability after implantation or had stopped using the cochlear implant. ConclusionsDespite broad inconsistencies in measurement, research design, and reporting across articles, it is evident that cochlear implantation is beneficial to the majority of adults of any age who have limited aided speech perception abilities. While many adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss may also have poor speech perception abilities with hearing aids, the validity of using hearing loss severity as a criterion for cochlear implantation has not been demonstrated. Clinical and...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 88%

Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We retrospectively collected the data from the medical files of 17 patients (18 ears) implanted with the SME. Patients with relevant functional hearing, defined as preoperative low-frequency PTA (0.125-0.5 kHz ) ≤ 80 dB (HL) were included in this study [27]. Patients with vestibulo-cochlear anomalies or cochlear fibrosis and/or ossification were excluded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode

Iso-Mustajärvi

Sipari

Löppönen

et al. 2019

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the insertion results and hearing preservation of a novel slim modiolar electrode (SME) in patients with residual hearing. Methods We retrospectively collected the data from the medical files of 17 patients (18 ears) implanted with a SME. All patients had functional low frequency hearing (PTA (0.125-0.5 kHz) ≤ 80 dB HL). The insertion results were reexamined from the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans. Postoperative thresholds were obtained at the time of switch-on of the sound processors (mean 43 days) and at latest follow-up (mean 582 days). The speech recognition in noise was measured with the Finnish matrix sentence test preoperatively and at follow-up. Results The mean insertion depth angle (IDA) was 395°. Neither scala dislocations nor tip fold over were detected. There were no total hearing losses. Functional low-frequency hearing was preserved in 15/18 (83%) ears at switch-on and in 14/17 (82%) ears at follow-up. According to HEARRING classification, 55% (10/18) had complete HP at switch-on and 41% (7/17) still at follow-up. Thirteen patients (14 ears) were initially fitted with electric-acoustic stimulation and seven patients (8 ears) continued to use it after follow-up. Conclusions The preliminary hearing preservation results with the SME were more favorable than reported for other perimodiolar electrodes. The results show that the array may also be feasible for electro-acoustic stimulation; it is beneficial in that it provides adequate cochlear coverage for pure electrical stimulation in the event of postoperative or progressive hearing loss.

show abstract

“…▪ Pure tone audiometry The accepted standard of pure tone audiometry is defined in the DIN EN ISO 8253-1:2011-04 on "Acoustics; audiometric test methods; part 1: basic pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry" [12]. In their publication entitled "Minimum reporting standards for adult cochlear implantation", Adunka et al suggest to regularly measure the following frequencies and to publish them in scientific publications [13]:…”

Section: Audiological Diagnosticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, tone audiometry is essential as method for assessment of the outcome parameter of "residual hearing". According to the literature, it is recommended to regularly measure the residual hearing capacities of the following frequencies [13,19]:…”

Section: Tone Audiometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, there is no standardized documentation of cochlear implantation. Proposals in this regard have already been presented in the past, for example by Adunka et al or Santa-Maria et al[13,77]. They encompass the following parameters:-Surgery side (left/right) -Type of the electrode carrier (straight/pre-shaped) -Length of the electrode carrier -Insertion depth (in mm, as well as the number of contacts that remain outside the cochlea) -Access to the cochlea (round window/cochleostomy) -Steroid applicatiaon (systemic/intratympanic) -Anatomic particularities -Complications (see above)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied in der Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie Cochlea-Implantat (CI)-Versorgung hat seit ihrer Einführung eine nicht zu erwartende Entwicklung und Verbreitung erfahren. Neben den technischen Möglichkeiten hat sich auch die Indikationsstellung deutlich gewandelt. Beispiele hierfür sind die Versorgung sehr junger oder sehr alter Menschen, die bilaterale Versorgung oder auch die Nutzung des Restgehörs für eine kombiniert elektrisch-akustische Stimulation (EAS). Diese Entwicklung ist weiterhin sehr dynamisch und bietet enorme Möglichkeiten für die Hörrehabilitation betroffener Patienten. Sie stellt aber gleichzeitig auch erhebliche Ansprüche an die Sicherstellung einer qualitativ am Optimum orientierten Versorgung der Leistungserbringer. In den letzten Jahren hat eine intensive Diskussion stattgefunden, die die Zielsetzung hatte, Qualitätsparameter zu definieren, die als Eckpunkte einer CI-Versorgung dienen sollten. Diese orientierten sich zunächst an der Beschreibung eines festgelegten Ablaufs einer CI-Versorgung und damit an den Teilaspekten einer Prozess-, Struktur- und Ergebnisqualität zur Qualitätssicherung. Praktische Umsetzung erfuhren diese Erwägungen u. a. in dem „Weißbuch CI-Versorgung“ und dem Konzept eines „Nationalen CI-Registers“ der DGHNO-KHC. Neben einer inhaltlich orientierten, innerhalb der Fachgesellschaft DGNHNO-KHC geführten Diskussion, zeigen inzwischen auch Kostenträger Ansätze, auf den Prozess einer CI-Versorgung Einfluss zu nehmen (QuInCI-Initiative der Techniker Krankenkasse). Auch von Seiten des Gesetzgebers sind hierzu Maßnahmen in Vorbereitung, die die CI-Versorgung unmittelbar betreffen werden („Implantateregister-Gesetz“). Die hier vorgelegte Arbeit soll den derzeitigen Wissensstand der Qualitätssicherung in der CI-Versorgung darstellen und eine Standortbestimmung für Deutschland im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern vornehmen.

show abstract

Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation

Cited by 78 publications

References 30 publications

Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review

Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review

Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied in der Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About