Search

Objective: The use of computer-based auditory training (CBAT) after cochlear implantation is associated with improved speech recognition and real-world functional abilities. However, patient-related factors associated with CBAT use remain unknown. This study seeks to identify such factors and recognize those at risk for not implementing CBAT., Study Design: Prospective natural experiment., Setting: Tertiary academic center., Patients: A total of 117 new adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients with bilateral moderate-to-profound hearing loss., Interventions/main Outcome Measures: Patient demographic and lifestyle information, preimplantation aided speech recognition scores, Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) domain and global scores, CIQOL-Expectations scores, and CBAT use in the first 3 months after activation. Patient-related variables included age, sex, race, duration of hearing loss before implantation, hours of CI use per day, hearing-aid use before implantation, living arrangements/marital status, annual household income, employment, technology use, and education., Results: Overall, 33 new CI users (28.2%) used CBAT in the first 3 months after activation. On bivariate analysis of the pre-CI CIQOL scores, CIQOL-Expectations score, aided speech recognition scores, and demographic/lifestyle factors examined, regular use of smartphone, tablet, or computer technology was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of CBAT use (odds ratio, 9.354 [1.198-73.020]), whereas higher CIQOL-Expectations emotional domain scores were associated with a lower likelihood of CBAT use (d = -0.69 [-1.34 to -0.05]). However, using multivariable analysis to control for potential confounding factors revealed no significant associations between CBAT use in the first 3 months after cochlear implantation and any examined factor., Conclusions: No associations between patient demographic, lifestyle, or pre-CI speech recognition and patient-reported outcome measures and CBAT use were identified. Therefore, discussions with all patients after implantation on the availability of CBAT and its potential benefits are warranted. In addition, given the limited overall use of CBAT and its association with improved CI outcomes, future studies are needed to investigate facilitators and barriers to CBAT use., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures., Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit., Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively)., Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to summarize current studies detailing the impact of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children and the most current modalities of treatment used in its management., Recent Findings: Current studies corroborate historic views on the impact of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss on patient wellbeing and academic success and stress the use of additional surveillance and studies to diagnose those patients that may pass standard screening practices and suffer from lack of prompt and proper care. With respect to management, notable findings include the continuous development of improved conventional and contralateral routing of signal amplification devices that may act to provide alternatives to percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. These include improvements in more conventional hearing aid technology, so as to bridge the performance gap with the classical bone-anchored hearing aid implant, and the development of partially implanted transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. Due to dissatisfaction with sound localization, a new and significant development is the burgeoning accumulation of research on cochlear implantation for the treatment of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children., Summary: With advances in technology in historic modalities of treatment, and the advent of new modalities such as cochlear implantation, the clinician has a wide armamentarium by which to provide treatment to patients based on clinical circumstances and patient desires.