Systematic review of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetrical hearing loss

Sampathkumar, Raghunandhan; Kaehne, Axel; Kumar, Nirmal; Kameswaran, Mohan; Irving, Richard

doi:10.1080/14670100.2021.1936363

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implants (CI) is an optional treatment for profoundly hard of hearing or deaf children and adults ( 1 ). Cochlear implantation improves general hearing abilities, speech perception, and sound localization in patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) ( 2 ), single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD) ( 3 ), and double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD) ( 4 ). Accumulating evidence suggests that the beneficial effects of implantation extend beyond the main indication (improvement of auditory abilities) and can positively impact cognition ( 5 – 7 ), health-related quality of life ( 6 , 8 ), and comorbid symptoms such as depression or anxiety ( 9 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implant on tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing and psychological comorbidities: Comparative analysis of patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD), and single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAuditory rehabilitation with a cochlear implant (CI), in many cases, positively impacts tinnitus. However, it is unclear if the tinnitus-related benefit of CI is equal for patients with various indications for CI. Therefore, this study aimed to determine differences in tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities between patients diagnosed with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD), and double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD) before and six months after cochlear implantation.MethodsOne hundred-one CI candidates were included in this prospective study (39 AHL patients, 23 DSD patients, and 39 SSD patients). The patients completed questionnaires measuring tinnitus distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing, perceived stress, and psychological comorbidities before and 6 months after CI.ResultsThe prevalence of tinnitus in the entire cohort (80.2% before CI) decreased 6 months after CI to 71.3%. The DSD group had the lowest tinnitus prevalence at both time points. The degree of tinnitus-induced distress decreased significantly in all three groups after CI. Differences in quality of life, subjective hearing, and psychological comorbidities between the groups at the study onset disappeared after CI. Significant correlations existed between anxiety, depression, and tinnitus distress in AHL and SSD but not in DSD patients before and after CI.DiscussionOur results demonstrate significant differences between the three groups of CI candidates, which might affect the implantation outcome. These differences suggest a need for personalized psychological counseling during the auditory rehabilitation process, focusing on anxiety and depressive symptoms for SSD and AHL patients.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implant on tinnitus prevalence and distress, health-related quality of life, subjective hearing and psychological comorbidities: Comparative analysis of patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), double-sided (bilateral) deafness (DSD), and single-sided (unilateral) deafness (SSD)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In CI users with single-sided deafness, there were large and significant improvements (as standardized mean difference) in speech perception in noise and in quiet (2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.16 to 3.43) and sound localization (−1.13, 95% CI = −1.68 to −0.57) (Oh et al 2023). Bimodal users with asymmetrical hearing loss, a CI in the worse-hearing ear and a hearing aid in the better ear (hearing thresholds in the better ear between 30 and 90 dB HL), had generally better auditory outcomes (e.g., sound localization and speech perception) compared with unilateral conditions (i.e., hearing aid or CI only) in the better ear (Sampathkumar et al 2021). For example, Sampathkumar et al (2021) report that in one study 10 bimodal CI users scored significantly better in speech-perception tests including consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores (−10.56; p ≤ 0.001), hearing in noise test (−10.56; p ≤ 0.001), Texas Instruments Massachusetts Institute of Technology in noise (−5.11; p ≤ 0.01) and Texas Instruments Massachusetts Institute of Technology in quiet (−5.99; p ≤ 0.001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…QoL and Cognition • Improvements in QoL following cochlear implantation have been demonstrated in general adults (Gaylor et al 2013), older adults (Berrettini et al 2011;Andries et al 2021;Kay-Rivest et al 2022), pre-lingually (Debruyne et al 2020) deaf adults, adults with asymmetrical hearing loss (Sampathkumar et al 2021), unilateral and bilateral CI users (Berrettini et al 2011). Evidence from meta-analyses showed overall medium effect sizes for QoL in general adult populations (0.79, 95% CI = 0.16 to 1.36) (McRackan et al 2018) and adults with single-sided deafness (0.68, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.91) (Oh et al 2023).…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Benefits of Cochlear Implantation for Adults: A Systematic Umbrella Review

Tang,

Tran,

et al. 2024

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The uptake of cochlear implants among adults who could benefit (based on pure-tone audiometry) in developed countries is estimated to be less than 10%. Concerns about potential surgical complications, fear of losing residual hearing, and limited awareness about the benefits of this intervention contribute to the low adoption rate. To enhance quality of life and improve the uptake of cochlear implants, it is essential to have a clear understanding of their benefits. Design: This umbrella review aims to summarize the major benefits of cochlear implant usage in adults, by synthesizing findings from published review articles. A comprehensive search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, was conducted. The search was limited to English-language review articles published between 1990 and 2022, focusing on cochlear implant outcomes in at least 5 adults (aged ≥18 years). Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and conducted a quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Results: Forty-two articles were included in this review. There were 15 systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 25 systematic reviews without meta-analysis, and 2 systematic scoping reviews. All 42 articles underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses, of which 40% (n = 17) satisfied 9 out of 11 quality criteria. This umbrella review shows that cochlear implants are associated with improvements in speech perception and recognition as well as improved quality of life and cognition. These benefits are observed in a significant proportion of adults undergoing the procedure, highlighting its effectiveness as a viable intervention for individuals with severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The potential benefits of cochlear implantation appear to outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. It is recommended that adults with severe to profound hearing loss in particular, engage in informed discussions with healthcare professionals to consider cochlear implantation as a viable treatment option.

show abstract

“…Along with the increasing number of case series, there have been several reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on both children and adults with UHL/AHL who received a cochlear implant [25,26 & , [27][28][29]. One of the largest reviews in children evaluated 12 different studies with a total of 119 children, ranging from 0.9 to 18 years of age at implantation [25].…”

Section: Reviews and Meta-analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss

Thompson¹,

Brown²,

Dillon³

2022

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology &Amp; Head &Amp; Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewChildren and adults with unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss (UHL/AHL) have poorer spatial hearing (e.g. speech understanding in complex maskers and localization) and quality of life compared with peers with normal hearing bilaterally. Patients with UHL/AHL experience limited benefits with contralateral-routing technologies (e.g. bone conduction, CROS hearing aid systems). Cochlear implantation allows for stimulation of the auditory pathway for the poorer hearing ear. The present study reviews the recent literature on outcomes of cochlear implant use for recipients with UHL/AHL. Recent findingsRecent research corroborates previous investigations of the significant benefits on measures of spatial hearing, tinnitus severity and quality of life for adult cochlear implant recipients. These benefits are also observed in pediatric cochlear implant recipients, with an association of better outcomes with younger ages at implantation for congenital cases and shorter durations of UHL/AHL for acquired cases. In addition, randomized trials demonstrate better outcomes with cochlear implant use versus contralateralrouting technologies.

show abstract

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetrical hearing loss

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

The Benefits of Cochlear Implantation for Adults: A Systematic Umbrella Review

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About