Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment – why not cochlear implants?

Turunen-Taheri, Satu; Edén, Margareta; Hellström, Sten; Carlsson, Peder

doi:10.1080/00016489.2019.1607976

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, treatment with CIs and surgery for far-advanced otosclerosis have been studied thoroughly, and many studies have shown a positive impact on the QoL [ 12 , 13 ]. However, only a small proportion (5–10%) of patients with STPHL receive CIs [ 14 , 15 ]. Most patients in this group are fitted with HAs, and a small proportion receive no technical rehabilitation [ 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2015, the registry replaced the initial general questionnaire with a new baseline and follow-up questionnaire. Several previous studies have presented results from the general and the baseline questionnaires, but this is the first time that data from follow-up questionnaires have been reported [ 3 , 15 , 16 , 18 ]. Since the registry contains questions concerning many different rehabilitation modalities, not only specific technical rehabilitation, such as CI, this study attempted to investigate the entire population with STPHL in Sweden, regardless of intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rehabilitation of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss in Adults in Sweden

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe-to-profound hearing loss (STPHL) can affect a person negatively in many ways. Audiological rehabilitation is important for these patients. Patients receiving cochlear implants make up less than 10% of this group but have been studied extensively. In 2005, a national registry for adult patients with STPHL was introduced in Sweden. Its purpose was to evaluate and improve rehabilitation for all patients with STPHL. Data from the Swedish registry for adult patients with STPHL were used to evaluate variables affecting the audiological rehabilitation. Previous published data from the registry were reviewed, and new data from the follow-up questionnaire were presented. More than 90% of patients rehabilitated with hearing aids experienced a good or very good benefit of audiological rehabilitation. Tinnitus and vertigo affected quality of life negatively and were reported by many patients with STPHL (41% and 31%) at follow-up. To maintain the high number of patients who find audiological rehabilitation beneficial, individualized treatment plans and timely re-evaluations are crucial. Tinnitus and vertigo need to be addressed repeatedly in the rehabilitation process.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss in Adults in Sweden

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-perceived hearing loss and hearing difficulty, the social stigma of hearing loss or the use of hearing-related technology, and aesthetics can also be barriers to CI uptake (53,72,74). Age has also been found to play a negative role in the decision to pursue a CI (6,49,77).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to Cochlear Implant Uptake in Adults: A Scoping Review

Neukam,

Kunnath,

Patro

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Cochlear Implants (CIs) provide access to sound and help mitigate the negative effects of hearing loss. As a field, we are successfully implanting more adults with greater amounts of residual hearing than ever before. Despite this, utilization remains low, which is thought to arise from barriers that are both intrinsic and extrinsic. A considerable body of literature has been published in the last five years on barriers to adult CI uptake, and understanding these barriers is critical to improving access and utilization. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature and provide a guide to understanding barriers to adult CI uptake. Methods: Inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles involving adults, written in English, and accessible with a university library subscription. A cutoff of 20 years was used to limit the search. Barriers uncovered in this review were categorized into an ecological framework. Results: The initial search revealed 2,315 items after duplicates were removed. One hundred thirty-one articles were reviewed under full-text, and 68 articles met inclusion criteria. Discussion: Race, ethnicity, and reimbursement are policy and structural barriers. Public awareness and education are societal barriers. Referral and geographical challenges are forms of organizational barriers. Living context and professional support are interpersonal barriers. At the individual level sound quality, uncertainty of outcome, surgery, loss of residual hearing, and irreversibility are all barriers to CI uptake. By organizing barriers into an ecological framework, targeted interventions can be used to overcome such barriers.

show abstract

“…The researchers found that, for unknown reasons, health care professionals often appear to avoid discussing CI treatment with older patients. [29] However, old patients themselves may not actively consider CI treatment because of their fear of the invasive procedure and its possible complications. Indeed, we have observed this mindset in many of our oldest patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implantation under local anesthesia in 117 cases: patients’ subjective experience and outcomes

Dietz

Lenarz

2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To report the outcomes and the patients’ subjective experience of cochlear implantation (CI) performed under local anesthesia (LA). To describe a new form of intraoperative cochlear monitoring based on the patients subjective sound perception during CI. Methods In this retrospective case–cohort study, 117 patients underwent CI under LA with (n = 58) or without conscious sedation (n = 59). Included were primarily elderly patients with elevated risks for general anesthesia and recently patients with residual hearing eligible for electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) (n = 27), in whom hearing could be monitored during the electrode insertion. A 500 Hz test tone was presented and the patient reported of subjective changes in loudness, leading to a modification of the insertion. A questionnaire was sent to all patients in which they assessed their subjective experience. Results All patients were successfully operated under LA without the need to intraoperatively convert to general anesthesia. 90% of the patients reported that the surgery was a positive experience. The vast majority, 90% of patients were satisfied with the overall treatment and with intraoperative pain management and 84% of the patients would opt for local anesthesia again. Cochlear monitoring by the patients’ subjective sound perception enabled for atraumatic insertions as all EAS patients could hear the test tone up to the end of the surgery. Conclusions CI under LA was well tolerated and recommended by the vast majority of patients. In addition, it offers the possibility to monitor the patients’ hearing during the electrode insertion, which may help to prevent insertion trauma.

show abstract

Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment – why not cochlear implants?

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Rehabilitation of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss in Adults in Sweden

Rehabilitation of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss in Adults in Sweden

Barriers to Cochlear Implant Uptake in Adults: A Scoping Review

Cochlear implantation under local anesthesia in 117 cases: patients’ subjective experience and outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About