Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To determine the impact of various Cochlear Implant (CI) indications on outcomes assessed using the International Classification of Functioning, disability and health (ICF)-based CI outcome assessment (CI-ICF) protocol.</p> Methods <p>Data from a multicenter longitudinal cohort study was analyzed. A consecutive sample of adult CI users (<i>N</i> = 72), including unilateral (<i>n</i> = 22), bilateral (<i>n</i> = 2), electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) (<i>n</i> = 6), single-sided deafness (SSD) (<i>n</i> = 6), and bimodal (<i>n</i> = 36) CI users, were enrolled based on clinical indications for cochlear implantation. Participants were assessed preoperatively and six months postoperatively using the CI-ICF protocol, which comprises patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pure tone and speech audiometry and localization tests.</p> Results <p>All CI indication groups showed benefits across most PROMs, pure tone and speech audiometry and localization. Differences were mainly observed in participants with SSD, who showed better baseline auditory abilities and less postoperative improvement compared to other groups for sound detection (PTA4) [e.g. PTA4 difference over time: SSD versus unilateral CI (<i>p</i> = 0.003)] and listening (HISQUI19) [e.g. HISQUI19 difference over time: SSD versus bimodal (<i>p</i> = 0.039)]. Participants with bimodal stimulation or SSD generally exhibited superior speech discrimination in noise abilities pre- and postoperatively, and demonstrated an equivalent amount of improvement for this category compared to EAS and unilateral CI users.</p> Conclusion <p>Various CI indication groups experienced improvements following cochlear implantation, highlighting its broad efficacy. Personalized CI strategies are essential to maximize individual outcomes. These findings support the comprehensive and readily interpretable assessment framework provided by the CI-ICF protocol in evaluating CI outcomes.</p> Trial Registration <p>Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04611555), retrospectively registered on 2-Nov-2020.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of cochlear implant indications on outcome, assessed and reported using the international classification of functioning, disability and health model

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月3日

查看全文
  • Ellen Andries,
  • Artur Lorens,
  • Piotr Henryk Skarżyński,
  • Henryk Skarżyński,
  • Miryam Calvino,
  • Javier Gavilán,
  • Luis Lassaletta,
  • Dayse Tavora-Vieira,
  • Aanand Acharya,
  • Anja Kurz,
  • Rudolf Hagen,
  • Ilona Anderson,
  • Karin Koinig,
  • Yassin Abdelsamad,
  • Paul Van de Heyning,
  • Vincent Van Rompaey,
  • Griet Mertens

摘要

Objectives

To determine the impact of various Cochlear Implant (CI) indications on outcomes assessed using the International Classification of Functioning, disability and health (ICF)-based CI outcome assessment (CI-ICF) protocol.

Methods

Data from a multicenter longitudinal cohort study was analyzed. A consecutive sample of adult CI users (N = 72), including unilateral (n = 22), bilateral (n = 2), electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) (n = 6), single-sided deafness (SSD) (n = 6), and bimodal (n = 36) CI users, were enrolled based on clinical indications for cochlear implantation. Participants were assessed preoperatively and six months postoperatively using the CI-ICF protocol, which comprises patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pure tone and speech audiometry and localization tests.

Results

All CI indication groups showed benefits across most PROMs, pure tone and speech audiometry and localization. Differences were mainly observed in participants with SSD, who showed better baseline auditory abilities and less postoperative improvement compared to other groups for sound detection (PTA4) [e.g. PTA4 difference over time: SSD versus unilateral CI (p = 0.003)] and listening (HISQUI19) [e.g. HISQUI19 difference over time: SSD versus bimodal (p = 0.039)]. Participants with bimodal stimulation or SSD generally exhibited superior speech discrimination in noise abilities pre- and postoperatively, and demonstrated an equivalent amount of improvement for this category compared to EAS and unilateral CI users.

Conclusion

Various CI indication groups experienced improvements following cochlear implantation, highlighting its broad efficacy. Personalized CI strategies are essential to maximize individual outcomes. These findings support the comprehensive and readily interpretable assessment framework provided by the CI-ICF protocol in evaluating CI outcomes.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04611555), retrospectively registered on 2-Nov-2020.