Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

Ramakers, Geerte G. J.; Kraaijenga, Véronique J. C.; Smulders, Yvette E.; Zon, Alice van; Stegeman, Inge; Stokroos, Robert J.; Free, Rolien; Frijns, Johan H. M.; Huinck, Wendy J.; Zanten, G. A. Van; Grolman, Wilko

doi:10.3389/fsurg.2017.00065

Cited by 18 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the positive previously reported effect of a CI on tinnitus in a large group of hearing impaired patients (Ketterer et al 2020;Peter et al 2019;Ramakers et al 2015Ramakers et al , 2017, tinnitus remains a problem for a significant proportion of CI users (Gomersall, Baguley, and Carlyon 2019). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability and the effect of sound therapy on tinnitus and speech perception in CI users who still experience tinnitus during CI use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Auditory stimulation can also be electrically provided by a cochlear implant (CI). So far, the benefit of a CI on tinnitus is mainly studied in patients receiving their implant because of severe to profound hearing loss (Ketterer et al 2020;Peter et al 2019;Ramakers et al 2015Ramakers et al , 2017. In these studies, a decrease in tinnitus burden or even complete suppression of tinnitus has been demonstrated, with only a minimal risk of inducing tinnitus (Peter et al 2019;Ramakers et al 2015).…”

Section: Treatment Options For Tinnitusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus

Heteren

Arts

Killian

et al. 2020

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Despite the positive effect of a cochlear implant (CI) on tinnitus in many patients, tinnitus remains a problem for a significant proportion of CI users. We investigated the acceptability and effect of sound therapy (a combination of natural background sounds and one concise tinnitus counselling session) on tinnitus and speech perception in CI users who still experienced tinnitus during CI use. Design and study sample: Thirty-two CI users (32-78 years) participated in phase 1: a test at the clinic to evaluate six background sounds provided by the sound processor. Eighteen out of the 32 CI users participated in phase 2: an optional take-home evaluation of 2 weeks without sound therapy, followed by 5 weeks with sound therapy, ending with an evaluation visit. Results: Thirty subjects (93.8%) found at least one background sound acceptable. In phase 2, a small improvement with sound therapy was found for tinnitus loudness, annoyance, and intrusiveness. 50% of the subjects subjectively reported benefit of sound therapy. Especially the sense of control on their tinnitus was highly appreciated. No detrimental effect on speech perception was observed. Conclusion: The background sounds were acceptable and provided tinnitus relief in some CI users with tinnitus during CI use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Treatment Options For Tinnitusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus

Heteren

Arts

Killian

et al. 2020

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors describe literature that provides evidence that cochlear implantation in SSD or AHL improves speech perception in noise, sound localization, quality of life and decreases the severity and incidence of tinnitus. Although cochlear implantation might be a treatment for (incapacitating) tinnitus, literature shows that cochlear implantation can have both a positive effect on tinnitus (decreased complaints) and a negative effect on tinnitus (a temporary or permanent induction of tinnitus) [ 31 – 33 ]. This and other recent studies improve knowledge on (long term) treatment of SSD/AHL and tinnitus which might be useful to guide future CI candidates [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss

Huinck

Mylanus

Snik

2019

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To report on a retrospective cohort study on the effects of expanding inclusion criteria for application of cochlear implants (CIs) on the performance 1-year post-implantation. Methods Based on pre-implantation audiometric thresholds and aided speech recognition scores, the data of 164 CI recipients were divided into a group of patients that fulfilled conservative criteria (mean hearing loss at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz > 85 dB HL and phoneme scores with hearing aids < 30%), and the remaining group of patients that felt outside this conservative criterion. Speech recognition scores (in quiet) and quality of life (using the NCIQ) of both groups, measured at 1-year post-implantation, were compared. Results The group that felt outside the conservative criterion showed a higher phoneme score at 1-year post-implantation compared to the conservative group, suggesting that relaxed criteria have a positive influence on the speech recognition results with CI. With respect to quality of life, both groups significantly improved 1-year post-implantation. The conservative group showed a higher benefit on the advanced perception domain of the NCIQ. Based on their worse pre-implantation hearing, this was expected. Conclusions The data suggest that relaxation of CI indication positively affects the speech recognition performance of patients with severe hearing loss. Both groups of patients showed a positive effect of CI on the quality of life. This benefit relates to communication skills and the subjective day-to-day functioning in society.

show abstract

“…The THI is a questionnaire regarding tinnitus handicap in daily life. The questionnaire comprises a 12-item functional subscale, an 8-item emotional subscale and a 5-item catastrophic subscale (Newman et al, 1996; McCombe et al, 2001; Ramakers et al, 2017a). The TQ consists of 52 questions on emotional and cognitive distress, intrusiveness, auditory perceptual difficulties, sleep disturbance and somatic complaints (Meeus et al, 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss. Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year follow-up period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) either, simultaneously (simBiCI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-in-noise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type). Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCI group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for follow-up. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCI group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 – 13.44], p < 0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 – -36.74], p < 0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCI group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-repo...

show abstract

Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus

Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About