Holistic Assessment of Cochlear Implant Outcomes Using the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health Model: Data Analysis of a Longitudinal Prospective Multicenter Study

Overview

Journal Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2024 Apr 4

PMID 38573516

Authors

Ellen Andries

Artur Lorens

Piotr Henryk Skarzynski

Henryk Skarzynski

Miryam Calvino

Javier Gavilan

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

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To study outcome after cochlear implantation using the Cochlear Implant (CI) outcome assessment protocol based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model (CI-ICF).

Methods: Raw data of a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study was analyzed. Seventy-two CI candidates were assessed preoperatively and six months postoperatively using the CI-ICF protocol. Following tools were used: (1) Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ), (2) Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), (3) Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ), (4) Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12), (5) Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19), (6) Nijmegen CI Questionnaire (NCIQ) (7) pure tone audiometry, (8) speech audiometry, (9) sound localization.

Results: There was a significant improvement of speech discrimination in quiet (p = 0.015; p < 0.001) and in noise (p = 0.041; p < 0.001), sound detection (p < 0.001), tinnitus (p = 0.026), listening (p < 0.001), communicating with-receiving-spoken messages (p < 0.001), conversation (p < 0.001), family relationships (p < 0.001), community life (p = 0.019), NCIQ total score and all subdomain scores (p < 0.001). Subjective sound localization significantly improved (p < 0.001), while psychometric sound localization did not. There was no significant subjective deterioration of vestibular functioning and no substantial change in sound aversiveness. CI users reported a high level of implant satisfaction postoperatively.

Conclusion: This study highlights the positive impact of cochlear implantation on auditory performance, communication, and subjective well-being. The CI-ICF protocol provides a holistic and comprehensive view of the evolution of CI outcomes.

Citing Articles

Utilization of the Spanish Bisyllable Word Recognition Test to Assess Cochlear Implant Performance Trajectory.

Holcomb M, Williams E, Prentiss S, Sanchez C, Smeal M, Stern T J Clin Med. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39941445 PMC: 11818614. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030774.

References

Goman A, Lin F . Prevalence of Hearing Loss by Severity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106(10):1820-2. PMC: 5024365. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303299. View

Sorkin D, Buchman C . Cochlear Implant Access in Six Developed Countries. Otol Neurotol. 2016; 37(2):e161-4. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000946. View

DHaese P, De Bodt M, Van Rompaey V, Van de Heyning P . Awareness of Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Results of a Survey Conducted in 500 Subjects Across 5 European Countries as a Basis for an Online Awareness Campaign. Inquiry. 2018; 55:46958018759421. PMC: 5858617. DOI: 10.1177/0046958018759421. View

Andries E, Bosmans J, Engelborghs S, Cras P, Vanderveken O, Lammers M . Evaluation of Cognitive Functioning Before and After Cochlear Implantation in Adults Aged 55 Years and Older at Risk for Mild Cognitive Impairment. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023; 149(4):310-316. PMC: 9936380. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.5046. View

Weichbold V, Zelger P, Galvan O, Muigg F . 5-Year Observation Period of Quality of Life After Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2023; 44(3):e155-e159. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003809. View

Boisvert I, Reis M, Au A, Cowan R, Dowell R . Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2020; 15(5):e0232421. PMC: 7199932. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232421. View

Ma C, Fried J, Nguyen S, Schvartz-Leyzac K, Camposeo E, Meyer T . Longitudinal Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implant: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2022; 133(5):1014-1024. DOI: 10.1002/lary.30354. View

Walia A, Bao J, Dwyer N, Rathgeb S, Chen S, Shew M . Predictors of Short-Term Changes in Quality of Life after Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2023; 44(3):e146-e154. PMC: 9928883. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003805. View

Andries E, Gilles A, Topsakal V, Vanderveken O, Van de Heyning P, Van Rompaey V . The impact of cochlear implantation on health-related quality of life in older adults, measured with the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 279(2):739-750. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06727-3. View

10.

Danermark B, Granberg S, Kramer S, Selb M, Moller C . The creation of a comprehensive and a brief core set for hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Am J Audiol. 2013; 22(2):323-8. DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0052). View

11.

Meyer C, Grenness C, Scarinci N, Hickson L . What Is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Why Is It Relevant to Audiology?. Semin Hear. 2016; 37(3):163-86. PMC: 4954783. DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584412. View

12.

Andries E, Lorens A, Skarzynski P, Skarzynski H, Calvino M, Gavilan J . Evaluating the Revised Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire in Cochlear Implant Users Cochlear Implant Outcome Assessment Based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Otol Neurotol. 2022; 43(5):e571-e577. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003524. View

13.

Finger M, Escorpizo R, Bostan C, de Bie R . Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2013; 24(3):498-510. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-013-9485-2. View

14.

Cox R, Alexander G . The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995; 16(2):176-86. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199504000-00005. View

15.

Billinger-Finke M, Bracker T, Weber A, Amann E, Anderson I, Batsoulis C . Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol. 2020; 59(5):392-397. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830. View

16.

Noble W, Jensen N, Naylor G, Bhullar N, Akeroyd M . A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: the SSQ12. Int J Audiol. 2013; 52(6):409-12. PMC: 3864780. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2013.781278. View

17.

Amann E, Anderson I . Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19). Acta Otolaryngol. 2014; 134(9):915-23. DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2014.909604. View

18.

Hinderink J, Krabbe P, Van Den Broek P . Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 123(6):756-65. DOI: 10.1067/mhn.2000.108203. View

19.

Rasmussen K, West N, Bille M, Caye-Thomasen P . Tinnitus suppression in a prospective cohort of 45 cochlear implant recipients: occurrence, degree and correlates. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023; 280(9):4073-4082. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-07921-1. View

20.

James C, Graham P, Betances Reinoso F, Breuning S, Durko M, Huarte Irujo A . The Listening Network and Cochlear Implant Benefits in Hearing-Impaired Adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021; 13:589296. PMC: 7947658. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.589296. View