Objectives: The effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus is heterogeneous: implantation does not always reduce tinnitus and may even worsen tinnitus. Therefore, it is important to know which factors influence the consequences of cochlear implantation for tinnitus. To date, no consensus has been reached regarding the factors that influence tinnitus. This study aimed to create prognostic models, using binary logistic regression analyses to predict positive or negative changes in tinnitus after cochlear implantation.
Methods: For this study we retrospectively sent two questionnaire packages to 117 cochlear implant patients.
Results: In the binary logistic regression analyses of the responses to the questionnaires, it was not possible to create a significant model to predict a positive effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus. However, a negative effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus was predictable, using a backward stepwise selection method in a model including the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire (THQ) ( < .001, Nagelkerke R = 0.529).
Conclusions: Our results suggest that the lower the preoperative tinnitus handicap and the preoperative hearing handicap, the higher the chance that cochlear implantation will worsen tinnitus. More research needs to be done, preferable in a big prospective study, to make this model instrumental for clinical decision making and preoperative patient counselling. However, our results might suggest that preoperative THQ and APHAB screening could be meaningful. Especially in patients who are afraid to develop tinnitus or tinnitus worsening as complication of cochlear implantation.
Level Of Evidence: 4.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383300 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.224 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Establishment of reference audiometric norms for the elderly population: A community-based study on mean and median hearing thresholds.
Heliyon
January 2025
Information Management Office, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, 112, Taiwan.
Background: This investigation quantifies the mean and median hearing thresholds and assesses the prevalence of age-related hearing loss within the senior population of Taipei.
Methods: In a substantive geriatric assessment supported by government initiative, 1696 individuals from a community hospital partook in this cross-sectional study (2016-2018). Detailed audiometric evaluations logged pure-tone thresholds across critical frequencies (0.
Some Challenging Questions About Outcomes in Children With Cochlear Implants.
Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups
December 2024
DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Purpose: Cochlear implants (CIs) have improved the quality of life for many children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Despite the reported CI benefits of improved speech recognition, speech intelligibility, and spoken language processing, large individual differences in speech and language outcomes are still consistently reported in the literature. The enormous variability in CI outcomes has made it challenging to predict which children may be at high risk for limited benefits and how potential risk factors can be improved with interventions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAnatomical investigation of safety determining factors for keyhole drilling trajectories for robotic cochlear implant surgery.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
January 2025
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels Health Centre, Brussels, Belgium.
Purpose: Cochlear implants (CI) are the most successful bioprosthesis in medicine probably due to the tonotopic anatomy of the auditory pathway and of course the brain plasticity. Correct placement of the CI arrays, respecting the inner ear anatomy are therefore important. The ideal trajectory to insert a cochlear implant array is defined by an entrance through the round window membrane and continues as long as possible parallel to the basal turn of the cochlea.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFRobot-assisted vs. manual cochlear implant electrode array insertion in four children.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
January 2025
Department of Audiovestibology, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Via Lazio, 21100, Varese, VA, Italy.
Purpose: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of a robotic electrode insertion in pediatric cochlear implantation and compare the results with manually inserted electrodes in the same subject.
Methods: Retrospective case series review of four children who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation with the same array: on one side, the array was inserted using the robot, while on the other side the array was inserted manually. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures were compared.
Speech Perception in Noise After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
January 2025
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Importance: There is a lack of high level of evidence studies comparing the effect of different treatment options for single-sided deafness (SSD).
Objective: To determine the effect of a cochlear implant (CI), bone conduction device (BCD), contralateral routing of signals hearing aid (CROS), and no treatment on speech perception in noise outcomes in patients with SSD.
Design, Setting, And Participants: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, adult patients with SSD were randomized into 3 groups: CI; a trial period with first a BCD on a headband and then a CROS; or a trial period with first a CROS and then a BCD on a headband.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!