Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T18:05:05.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outcomes from adult implantation, the first 100 patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

D. W. Proops ,
I. Donaldson ,
H. R. Cooper ,
J. Thomas ,
S. P. Burrell ,
R. L. Stoddart ,
A. Moore  and
I. M. Cheshire
D. W. Proops
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
I. Donaldson
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
H. R. Cooper*
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
J. Thomas
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
S. P. Burrell
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
R. L. Stoddart
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
A. Moore
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
I. M. Cheshire
Affiliation:
Midland Cochlear Implant Programme, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Huw Cooper, Consultant Audiological Scientist, Hearing Assessment and Rehabilitation Centre,Selly Oak Hospital, Raddlebarn Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, West Midlands B29 6JD.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the outcome of implantation in the first 100 adult patients treated under the Midland Cochlear Implant Programme. All patients were post-lingually deaf with profound or total hearing loss. Performance was tested in lip-reading, implant only and combined lip-reading and implant modes using BKB sentences, connected discourse tracking (CDT) and environmental sound recognition. Assessments were made at nine and 18 months post-implant.

The dominant aetiologies were idiopathic and meningitis. Meningitis was associated with the greatest numbers of ossified cochleas. Forty-three per cent of cases of partial ossification were identified only at surgery. Four per cent of patients became non-users of their devices, however the majority used their implants for more than 12 hours each day. The mean scores at nine months post-implant, in the implant only mode, were for environmental sound recognition 56.7 per cent, for BKB sentences 46.6 per cent (80 per cent of patients scored above 0 per cent) and for CDT 31.2 words per minute (w.p.m.) (62 per cent scored above zero per cent). In the combined lip reading and implant mode the mean scores, at nine months, were for BKB sentences 81.5 per cent and for CDT 65.8 w.p.m. All results were sustained at 18 months.

Patients reported that implantation significantly reduced their hearing handicap. Pre-operative measures of depression were also significantly reduced at nine months post-implant. Results were sustained at 18 months.

Post-operative audiological outcomes in the electrical stimulation only mode correlated significantly with length of profound deafness. Results suggest that performance outcome is also related to the number of active electrodes.

Keywords

Cochlear implantsOutcome assessment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 113 , Supplement 24 , August 1999 , pp. 5 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Battmer, R.-D., Gupta, S. P., Allum-Mecklenburg, D. J., Lenarz, T. (1995) Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium—Melbourne 1994 (Clark, G. M., Cowan, R. S. C., eds.). Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl 166): 185–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Bird, A. S., MacDonald, A. J. D., Mann, A. H., Philpot, M. P. (1987) Preliminary experience with the SELFCARE(D): a self-rating depression questionnaire for use in elderly noninstitutionalized subjects. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brill, S. M., Hochmair, E. S. (1997) Speech understanding as a function of the number of active channels and stimulation rate in the CIS strategy as implemented in the Combi 40/ Combi 40+. Vth. International Cochlear Implant ConferenceMay 1–3, 1997 Abstract p109.Google Scholar
Fishman, K. E.Shannon, R. V., Slattery, W. H. (1997) Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. Vth. International Cochlear Implant ConferenceMay 1–3, 1997. Abstract p114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frau, G. N., Luxford, W. M., Lo, W. W. M., Berliner, K. I., Telischi, F. F. (1994) High-resolution computed tomography in evaluation of cochlear patency in implant candidates: a comparison with surgical findings. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 108: 743–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G. G., Abbas, P. J., Knutson, J. F., Tyler, R. S. (1993) Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multi-channel cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 102: 909–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. F., Quinn, S. J., Court, I., Vanat, Z., Baguley, D. M. (1995) Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant. International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium – Melbourne 1994 (Clark, G. M., Cowan, R. S. C., eds). Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl 166): 275–277.Google ScholarPubMed
Hinderink, J. B., Mens, L. H. M., Brokx, J. P. L., Van Den Broek, P. (1995) Performance of pre-lingually and postlingually deaf patients using single-channel or multichannel cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 105: 618–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Profant, M., Kabátová, Z., Simko, S., Simková, L. (1997) Cochlear implant surgery: Complications and obliteration of cochlea. Vth International Cochlear Implant ConferenceMay 1–3, 1997. Abstract.Google Scholar
Schow, R., Nerbonne, M. (1980) Hearing handicap and Denver scales: applications, categories, and interpretation. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 13: 66–77.Google Scholar
Strauβ-Schier, A., Battmer, R.-D., Rost, U., Allum-Mecklenburg, D. J., Lenarz, T. (1995) Speech tracking results for adults. International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium – Melbourne 1994 (Clark, G. M. and Cowan, R. S. C., eds.). Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl 166): 88–91.Google Scholar
Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. (1995). Cochlear implantation in the UK 1990–1994. Report by the MRC Institute of Hearing Research on the Evaluation of the National Cochlear Implant Programme. Main report. HMSO.Google Scholar
Truy, E., Cote-Deplus, I., Bascoulergues, Y., Morgon, A. (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and high resolution computer tomography (HRCT) in cochlear implant candidates. Vth International Cochlear Implant ConferenceMay 1–3, 1997.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, J. E., Van Olphen, A. F., Mens, L. H. M., Brokx, J. P. L., Van Den Broek, P., Smoorenburg, G. F. (1995) Predictive factors for success with a cochlear implant. International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium – Melbourne 1994 (Clark, G. M. and Cowan, R. S. C., eds.). Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl 166): 196–198.Google Scholar