» Articles » PMID: 29165436

Cochlear Implant in Prelingually Deafened Oralist Adults: Speech Perception Outcomes, Subjective Benefits and Quality of Life Improvement

Overview
Date 2017 Nov 23
PMID 29165436
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this study is to report our results in a group of prelingually deafened adults, who followed an oralist rehabilitation programme, and submitted to cochlear implant at our institution. We evaluated 30 prelingually deafened adult patients, 18 males and 12 females, median age 35 years, of a group of 36 prelingually deafened adult patients consecutively submitted to unilateral cochlear implantation at the ENT Unit of the University of Pisa. After implantation, patients achieved significant benefits in terms of speech perception skills, including the ability to have telephone conversations in some cases, quality of life and their own perception of disability. According to literature data, the results herein reported are quite variable but generally satisfactory. Procedures other than traditional speech perception measures should be used to evaluate the benefits of cochlear implant in such patients, to compressively evaluate the global benefits, not only in terms of speech perception, but also in terms of quality of life and daily life.

Citing Articles

Quality of Life and Audiological Benefits in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users in Romania: Systematic Review and Cohort Study.

Gundacker G, Trales D, Stefanescu H J Pers Med. 2023; 13(11).

PMID: 38003925 PMC: 10672230. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111610.


Satisfaction and quality of life in cochlear implant users with long sensory deprivation.

Ledesma A, Evangelista K, Alexandria D, Sales J, Caldas F, Bahmad Junior F Codas. 2023; 35(4):e20210021.

PMID: 37466501 PMC: 10446750. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20232021021en.


Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire into Turkish language: validity, reliability and effects of demographic variables.

Alniacik A, Cakmak E, Oz O Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 279(4):2175-2182.

PMID: 34837517 PMC: 8627160. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-07191-9.


Cochlear implant in prelingually hearing-impaired adults: prognostic factors and results.

Forli F, Lazzerini F, Montecchiari V, Morganti R, Bruschini L, Berrettini S Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2021; 41(2):173-179.

PMID: 34028463 PMC: 8142735. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1146.


Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Prelingually Deafened Adults with and without Sound Deprivation: Are There Differences in Quality of Life?.

Canale A, Macocco F, Ndrev D, Gabella G, Scozzari G, Albera R Med Sci Monit. 2021; 27:e930232.

PMID: 34001843 PMC: 8140525. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.930232.


References
1.
Most T, Shrem H, Duvdevani I . Cochlear implantation in late-implanted adults with prelingual deafness. Am J Otolaryngol. 2009; 31(6):418-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2009.07.002. View

2.
Klop W, Briaire J, Stiggelbout A, Frijns J . Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness. Laryngoscope. 2007; 117(11):1982-7. DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31812f56a6. View

3.
Bosco E, Nicastri M, Ballantyne D, Viccaro M, Ruoppolo G, Ionescu Maddalena A . Long term results in late implanted adolescent and adult CI recipients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012; 270(10):2611-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-012-2264-4. View

4.
Van Dijkhuizen J, Beers M, Boermans P, Briaire J, Frijns J . Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults. Ear Hear. 2011; 32(4):445-58. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820510b7. View

5.
Ware Jr J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30(6):473-83. View