Search

Objectives: Our study aimed to identify potential factors that may influence rehabilitation outcomes in late‐implanted adolescents and adults with prelingual deafness and to construct a user‐friendly nomogram. Design: This cross‐sectional study included 120 subjects under 30 years of age who had received cochlear implantation at a single medical centre. The Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) scale was used to evaluate the rehabilitation outcomes. A nomogram was constructed by using the R and EmpowerStats software. Results: Univariate analysis indicated higher rates of auditory performance improvement in younger aged subjects. Residual hearing and regular implant use were more frequently seen among subjects with auditory performance improvement. Multivariate analysis identified residual hearing (Hazard Ratio, 6.11; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.83–20.41; p <.01), age group (Hazard Ratio, 0.31; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.14–0.83; p =.02) and regular CI use (Hazard Ratio, 7.79; 95% Confidence Interval, 2.50–24.20; p <.01) as independent predictors for auditory performance improvement. The nomogram's predictive performance was satisfactory as shown by the calibration curve and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Conclusions: Factors such as residual hearing, younger age and regular CI use are associated with auditory performance improvement in this cochlear implant user population. The nomogram model also demonstrates a satisfactory predictive performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SIR scale has been widely used to measure speech improvement in late-implanted prelingually deafened adolescents and adults. However the ceiling effect of the SIR scale may lead to the loss of some information. Aim/objectives: To evaluate the oral ability of late-implanted prelingually deafened adolescents and adults using the MUSS and SIR scale and to analyse the relationship between the SIR score and the MUSS score. Material and methods: Ninety-four prelingually deafened adolescents and adults who had received cochlear implants were investigated. The MUSS and SIR scale were used to evaluate oral ability. Results: The relationship between the duration of implant use and the MUSS score was significantly different. No significant differences were found among the groups for age at implantation, gender and side of cochlear implantation. The total score on the MUSS was positively correlated with the SIR score. Conclusions and significance: The MUSS and the SIR scale could be used to evaluate the oral ability of late implanted patients. The SIR scale could be used to perform a rapid assessment and the MUSS could help provide more information. The combination of the two scales could be used to evaluate vocal ability more accurately and effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]