4.5 Article

Patient benefit from Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness: a 1-year follow-up

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 274, Issue 6, Pages 2405-2409

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4511-1

Keywords

Single-sided deafness; Cochlear implantation; Quality of life; Hearing aid

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life and benefit in patients with single-side deafness before and 1 year after cochlear implantation. In a prospective observational study design, ten adult patients with single-sided deafness undergoing cochlear implantation were included. All patients had on the implantation side no speech discrimination with normal hearing aids. The contralateral side was normal or marginal hearing loss. For determining the subject benefit from cochlear implantation, each patient answered standardized questionnaires directly before implantation and 1 year after. Regarding the questionnaire Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ), the tests yielded a significant difference in the subdomains speech intelligibility and spatial hearing. The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) showed a significant difference in the subdomain basic sound perception, but not in the total score. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) showed on average moderate satisfaction in the subdomains hearing aid benefit and residual disability. In general quality of life, no significant difference was found measured by the questionnaire EQ-5D-3L. One year after cochlear implantation, most patients with single-sided deafness showed benefits in hearing as measured by validated questionnaires However, not all patients reported a significant improvement in general quality of life. Therefore, it is important to inform patients adequately and offer alternative treatments before implantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available