Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Prelingually Deafened Adults with and without Sound Deprivation: Are There Differences in Quality of Life?
Canale, Andrea; Macocco, Francesco; Ndrev, Drita; Gabella, Giulia; Scozzari, Gitana; Albera, Roberto; Pecorari, Giancarlo; Albera, Andrea.
Afiliación
  • Canale A; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Macocco F; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Ndrev D; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Gabella G; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Scozzari G; Molinette Hospital Medical Direction, AOU City of Health and Science of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Albera R; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Pecorari G; Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
  • Albera A; Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini", University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e930232, 2021 May 18.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34001843
BACKGROUND Indications for cochlear implantation (CI) are constantly being updated, and with them, the audiometric results achieved by patients. Patient satisfaction should always be considered, even in patients with lower audiological results. The aim of the present study was to compare quality of life (QoL), self-perceived hearing benefit, and audiometric results between prelingually and postlingually deafened patients, with and without sound deprivation, after CI. MATERIAL AND METHODS The sample included 46 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss: 22 postlingually deafened and 24 prelingually deafened, further subdivided into sound-deprived (n=10) and non-sound-deprived (n=14). Auditory performance was evaluated with pure tone audiometry, speech recognition scores (SRS), and self-perceived hearing benefit, whereas QoL was evaluated with 2 self-reported questionnaires (Comprehensive Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF). RESULTS Audiometric results were worse in the prelingually deafened than in the postlingually deafened group, and worse in the prelingually deafened patients with sound deprivation. There was no marked difference in perceived CI benefit or QoL between the 2 groups or within the 2 prelingually deafened subgroups. No correlation was found between SRS and duration of CI use or between QoL and SRS in the prelingually and postlingually deafened groups. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate better auditory performance for the postlingually deafened group and no differences in perceived QoL or benefit of CI between the groups. The sound-deprived patients had equal scores on the perceived QoL questionnaire. These analyses suggest that sound-deprived, prelingually deafened patients may benefit from CI.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Cocleares / Implantación Coclear / Sordera Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Med Sci Monit Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Cocleares / Implantación Coclear / Sordera Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Med Sci Monit Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos