Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life and psychological status in single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss with tinnitus and influencing factors of implantation intention: a preliminary study

PURPOSE

The current study aims to explore the therapeutic effect of cochlear implants (CIs) on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss (SSD/AHL) as well as the improvement of tinnitus-related quality of life and psychological status. In addition, we also explored whether the levels of quality of life and psychological status was related to the patient's implantation intention.

METHODS

Seven patients decided to receive cochlear implantation. Before and after implantation, they completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) to assess tinnitus severity, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) to assess the quality of life, the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) to assess psychological status. The other 8 SSD patients refused cochlear implantation. Their scores of the above questionnaires were compared with those of patients received implantation.

RESULTS

Six months after cochlear implantations, the tinnitus perception, loudness, and annoyance significantly decreased compared to that before implantation. In terms of quality of life and physiological status, no statistically significant changes were detected in SSQ, SF-36, and SCSQ measurements. The score of annoyance subcategory of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ of patients refused implantation were better than those of implanted patients before implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that CIs can significantly reduce tinnitus severity. Patients refused implantation had better status in the annoyance of VAS and all subcategories of SSQ scores than those received implantation.

The functional impact of implantable hearing devices in patients with single-sided deafness

Introduction

Single-sided deafness (SSD) is associated with significant functional impairment such as listening speech in noise and localizing sound. To date, studies on the efficacy of CI and BCI for single-sided deafness are conflicting.

Objective

Thus, the objective of our study was to describe and compare the functional outcomes between these devices.

Methods

Thirteen subjects with SSD were prospectively recruited for our study. Six underwent CI and seven received BCI. Word recognition scores (WRS) and disease specific outcome measures were obtained pre-implantation, at 6, and 12 months.

Results

WRS improved both in quiet and in noise for CI and BCI recipients. On the contrary, CI recipients displayed improvement in Speech Spatial Quality (SSQ) scores. A decreasing trend of improvement in APHAB scores were observed for the BCI group.

Conclusion

BCI recipients showed a significant improvement in WRS (in noise). Conversely, CI recipients showed a great improvement in SSQ scores. These preliminary findings suggest that true binaural hearing can only be restored with CI for better SSQ performance. However, BCIs could be recommended to a sub-group of patients, if listening to speech in noise is a priority.

Matching the pitch perception of the cochlear implanted ear with the contralateral ear in patients with single-sided deafness: a novel approach

PURPOSE

Single-sided deaf patients following cochlear implantation often compare the sound quality of their implanted ear with normal hearing. The interaural differences can result in dissatisfaction with speech comprehension and reduced time of usage of the speech processor; hence, prolonging auditory adaptation time. The proposed calibration method presented in this study demonstrates how the frequency distribution of the cochlear implant can be set to adequately approximate the pitch perception of the contralateral normal hearing ear towards improving speech intelligibility in a noisy environment.

METHODS

In 12 postlingual single-sided deaf patients, subjective interaural pitch-matching was carried out to determine new central frequencies for the reallocation of the frequency bands of their speech processor (CP910, CP950 or CP1000, Cochlear, Australia). The patients were asked to compare the pitch of the tones presented to their normal hearing ear to the pitch of individual channels of their cochlear implant (CI522 or CI622, Cochlear, Australia). A third-degree polynomial curve was fit to the acquired matching frequencies to create the new frequency allocation table. Audiological measurements (free-field aided thresholds, speech reception thresholds, and monosyllabic word recognition score) in noise, together with a Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) questionnaire (short version of the original SSQ) results were evaluated prior to the pitch-matching procedure, and again, 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

The free-field aided thresholds of the patients showed no greater shift than ± 5 dB following the procedure; however, their monosyllabic word recognition score in noise improved significantly (mean - 9.58%, SD 4.98%, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001). The results of the SSQ12 questionnaire also showed significant improvement in speech intelligibility, sound localization, and sound quality (mean 0.96 points, SD 0.45 points, matched pairs t test comparison: p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Matching the pitch perception of the implanted cochlea with the sensation of the normal hearing contralateral ear, resulted in significant changes in the quality of hearing in patients with single-sided deafness. It is plausible the procedure can usher positive results in bimodal patients or following sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.

Neural activity of the auditory cortex predicts speech recognition of patients with asymmetric hearing loss after cochlear implantation

Patients with asymmetric hearing loss show an asymmetry of glucose metabolism of the primary auditory cortex (PAC). We investigated whether this asymmetry could serve as an objective predictor for speech recognition with CI. Nine patients underwent ¹⁸FDG PET prior to CI surgery. Average normalized ¹⁸FDG uptake of 25% of voxels with highest uptake was calculated for the PAC employing a probabilistic atlas and cerebellar cortex as reference. Differences in glucose metabolism of the PAC were assessed by an asymmetry index (AI-PAC). We tested the correlation between outcome of CI surgery (6 months post implantation), AI-PAC and clinical predictors. Pre-operative AI-PAC showed a positive correlation with speech recognition with CI (significant for sentences and numbers; trend for monosyllabic words). With a pre-operative AI-PAC ≥ 4.2%, patients reached good CI outcome in sentence recognition of 59–90% and number recognition of 90–100% and less favorable CI outcome in monosyllabic word recognition of 25–45%. Age at symptom onset was significantly associated with all measures of speech recognition, while deafness duration was only associated with sentence recognition. AI-PAC allows for a reliable and quantitative pre-operative prediction of early improvement in speech recognition after CI. ¹⁸FDG PET may be a valuable addition to the objective pre-operative assessment of CI candidates. Further studies in larger cohorts and with longer follow-up times are needed.

Short-term outcomes of cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness compared to bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound hearing aids-Results of a Randomised controlled trial (CINGLE-trial)

Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of 'first BCD, then CROS'; trial period of 'first CROS, then BCD'. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial.

Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Single-sided Deafness: Outcomes and Device Use

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) for treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Fifty-three adults with SSD.

INTERVENTIONS

Unilateral CI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Speech perception testing in quiet and noise, tinnitus suppression, and device usage from datalogs.

RESULTS

The mean age at CI was 53.2 years (SD 11.9). The mean duration of deafness was 4.0 years (SD 7.8). The most common etiology was idiopathic sudden SNHL (50%). Word recognition improved from 8.7% (SD 15) preoperatively to 61.8% (SD 20) at a mean follow-up of 3.3 years (SD 1.8) (p < 0.0001). Adaptive speech recognition testing in the "binaural with CI" condition (speech directed toward the front and noise toward the normal hearing ear) revealed a significant improvement by 2.6-dB SNR compared to the preoperative unaided condition (p = 0.0002) and by 3.6-dB SNR compared to when a device to route sound to the contralateral side was used (p < 0.0001). Tinnitus suppression was reported to be complete in 23 patients (43%) and improved in 20 patients (38%) while the device was on. The addition of the CI did not lead to a decrement in hearing performance in any spatial configuration. Device usage averaged 8.7 (SD 3.7) hours/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation in adult SSD patients can suppress tinnitus and achieve speech perception outcomes comparable with CI in conventional candidates. Modest improvements in spatial hearing were also observed and primarily attributable to the head shadow effect. Careful patient selection and counseling regarding potential benefits are important to optimize outcomes.

Cochlear Implantation and Other Treatments in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Results of a National Multicenter Study Including a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Cochlear implantation is a recent approach proposed to treat single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Several cohort studies showed its effectiveness on tinnitus and variable results on binaural hearing. The main objective of this study is to assess the outcomes of cochlear implantation and other treatment options in SSD/AHL on quality of life.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 7 tertiary university hospitals and included an observational cohort study of SSD/AHL adult patients treated using contralateral routing of the signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHSs) or who declined all treatments, and a randomized controlled trial in subjects treated by cochlear implantation, after failure of CROS and BAHS trials. In total, 155 subjects with SSD or AHL, with or without associated tinnitus, were enrolled. After 2 consecutive trials with CROS hearing aids and BAHSs on headband, all subjects chose any of the 4 treatment options (abstention, CROS, BAHS, or cochlear implant [CI]). The subjects who opted for a CI were randomized between 2 arms (CI vs. initial observation). Six months after the treatment choice, quality of life was assessed using both generic (EuroQoL-5D, EQ-5D) and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices (Nijmegen Cochlear implant Questionnaire [NCIQ] and Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] for tinnitus severity). Performances for speech-in-noise recognition and localization were measured as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

CROS was chosen by 75 subjects, while 51 opted for cochlear implantation, 18 for BAHSs, and 11 for abstention. Six months after treatment, both EQ-5D VAS and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices were significantly better in the "CI" arm versus "observation" arm. The mean effect of the CI was particularly significant in subjects with associated severe tinnitus (mean improvement of 20.7 points ± 19.7 on EQ-5D VAS, 20.4 ± 12.4 on NCIQ, and 51.4 ± 35.4 on tinnitus). No significant effect of the CI was found on binaural hearing results. Before/after comparisons showed that the CROS and BAHS also improved significantly NCIQ scores (for CROS: +7.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = [4.5; 10.8]; for the BAHS: +14.3, 95% CI = [7.9; 20.7]).

CONCLUSION

Cochlear implantation leads to significant improvements in quality of life in SSD and AHL patients, particularly in subjects with associated severe tinnitus, who are thereby the best candidates to an extension of CI indications.

Is the cochlear implant a successful long-term solution for single-sided deaf and asymmetric hearing-impaired patients?

PURPOSE

We investigated the long-term results of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) or single-sided deafness (SSD). We focused on wearing behavior, audiometric hearing rehabilitation, and subjective benefits of the CI. CI is expected to improve audiological results, subjective hearing perception, and tinnitus burden.

METHODS

Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization were assessed preoperatively and after at least six years of CI experience. Validated questionnaires determined the subjective benefit of CI use and the subjective evaluation of tinnitus.

RESULTS

Over 80% of the included AHL and SSD CI recipients used their CI between 6 and 10 h daily; four subjects with SSD were non-users. Speech recognition in background noise and sound localization improved significantly compared with the unaided preoperative situation. Additionally, CI improved subjective speech intelligibility and spatial hearing impression while reducing tinnitus burden.

CONCLUSION

Subjects with AHL and SSD benefit from CI, subjectively and audiologically. Cochlear implant is a successful long-term treatment for AHL and SSD.

Simultaneous cochlear implantation and removal of acoustic neuroma: implications for hearing

OBJECTIVE

To present our data evaluating the feasibility of simultaneous cochlear implantation with resection of acoustic neuroma.

METHODS

This paper describes a case series of eight adult patients with a radiologically suspected acoustic neuroma, treated at a tertiary referral centre in Newcastle, Australia, between 2012 and 2015. Patients underwent cochlear implantation concurrently with removal of an acoustic neuroma. The approach was translabyrinthine, with facial nerve monitoring and electrically evoked auditory brainstem response testing. Standard post-implant rehabilitation was employed, with three and six months' follow-up data collected. The main outcome measures were: hearing, subjective benefit of implant, operative complications and tumour recurrence.

RESULTS

Eight patients underwent simultaneous cochlear implantation with resection of acoustic neuroma over a 3-year period, and had 25-63 months' follow up. There were no major complications. All patients except one gained usable hearing and were daily implant users.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous cochlear implantation with resection of acoustic neuroma has been shown to be a safe treatment option, which will be applicable in a wide range of clinical scenarios as the indications for cochlear implantation continue to expand.

How Do We Know That Our Patients Have Benefitted From Our ENT/Audiological Interventions? Presented at the Annual Meeting of ADANO 2016 in Berlin

: This short review article gives an introduction to some of the fundamental concepts and challenges facing measurement in hearing healthcare practice and research. The impact of hearing loss almost always extends beyond the sensory impairment itself, even when the measured degree of audiometric loss is mild. Yet, going beyond audibility, into the realm of measuring impact, takes us into a much more complex and less well-defined space. How does one therefore best measure the therapeutic benefit for evaluating efficacy or for clinical practice audit? Three case studies illustrate approaches to overcome such challenges. Each example highlights the importance of thinking critically about what it is one is seeking trying to measure, rather than selecting a questionnaire instrument based simply on its popularity or accessibility. We conclude by highlighting the important role that clinicians can play in collecting clinical data about their preferred instruments so that we have some evidence to inform decisions about good practice (content validity etc.). We would also strongly support open data sharing as we think that this is one of the best ways to make the most rapid progress the field.

A Prospective Randomized Crossover Study in Single Sided Deafness on the New Non-Invasive Adhesive Bone Conduction Hearing System

BACKGROUND

Recently, an adhesive bone conduction hearing system has been developed for conductive hearing loss or single-sided deafness (SSD). In SSD cases, this device may be a good solution for patients who are unsuitable for, or who do not wish to undergo, bone conduction implant or cochlear implant surgery. The study aimed to investigate the hearing outcomes with the adhesive hearing system in SSD.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The study aimed to investigate the hearing outcomes with the adhesive hearing system in SSD.

METHODS

A randomized crossover study was conducted in 17 SSD participants, using CROS (contralateral routing of signals) hearing aid as a control. Following outcome measurements were administered after a two-week trial: 1) Speech, Spatial and Qualities scale, Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire, and a custom-made questionnaire about the use of the system, 2) sound localization, 3) speech perception in noise.

RESULTS

70% of the SSD subjects reported that the adhesive hearing system was partially useful or better. Using the APSQ, the adhesive test device was evaluated equally as the control device. Sound localization improved with the adhesive test device and deteriorated with the control device. There was no improvement in speech perception in noise measured with the adhesive test device. Speech perception in noise (SSSDNNH) with the control device improved significantly.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report on the outcomes of the new adhesive system. Users' satisfaction of the adhesive hearing system was found to be comparable to the control device. Since the hearing outcomes vary highly between patients, trials with applicable hearing systems are recommended in SSD patients.

Cochlear implantation as a treatment for single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a randomized controlled evaluation of cost-utility

BACKGROUND

Single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have recently been proposed as a new indication for cochlear implantation. There is still no recommended treatment for these hearing deficits, and most options considered rely on the transfer of sound from the poor ear to the better ear, using Contralateral Routing of the Signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone conduction (BC) devices. In contrast, cochlear implantation allows the poor ear to be stimulated and binaural hearing abilities to be partially restored. Indeed, most recently published studies have reported an improvement in the spatial localisation of an incoming sound and better speech recognition in noisy environments after cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL subjects. It also provides consistent relief of tinnitus when associated. These encouraging hearing outcomes raise the question of the cost-utility of this expensive treatment in an extended indication.

METHODS

The final endpoint of this national multicentre study is to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in comparison to the current standard of care in France through simple observation, using a randomised controlled trial. Firstly, the study comprises a prospective and descriptive part, where 150 SSD/AHL subjects try CROS hearing aids and a BC device for three weeks each. Secondly, the choice is made between CROS hearing aids, BC implanted device and cochlear implantation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are described after 6 months for the subjects who chose CROS, BC or declined any option. The subjects who opt for cochlear implantation are randomised between one group where the cochlear implant is inserted without delay and one group of simple initial observation. Hearing outcomes and quality of life measurements are compared after 6 months.

DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to assess the efficiency of cochlear implantation in SSD/AHL. A favourable cost-utility ratio in this extended indication would strengthen the promising clinical results and justify a reimbursement by the health insurance. The efficiency of other options (CROS, BC) will also be described.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This research has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), the 29th July 2014 under the n°NCT02204618.

Functional Result After Cochlear Implantation in Children and Adults With Single-sided Deafness

BACKGROUND

Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) suffer from reduced binaural hearing (i.e., sound localization and speech in noise discrimination). Cochlear implantation has recently been introduced for patients with SSD, as an alternative to hearing devices that employ contralateral routing of the signal. Application to children has also been started.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyze a case series of 4 children and 17 adults with SSD, treated with cochlear implantation. The outcome of adult patients was compared with a control group of 27 patients with bilateral profound hearing loss using a cochlear implant.

RESULTS

During 12 months, the mean speech recognition score increased from 30 to 41% for monosyllabic words in adults, and from 58 to 89% for multisyllabic numbers. The cochlear implant (CI) improved hearing in noise in all SSD patients, as was demonstrated by a significant improvement of the speech reception threshold in different speech and noise configurations. Sound localization-correlated angle detection error improved with CI use at every time point. The maximum word recognition score for monosyllabic words in quiet correlated with the logarithm of the duration of deafness; improvement of the speech reception threshold and RMS angle detection error by the CI did not.

CONCLUSION

All SSD patients benefitted from the CI in different hearing situations. Patients with SSD for a long period can improve after cochlear implantation.

Contralateral routing of signals disrupts monaural level and spectral cues to sound localisation on the horizontal plane

Objectives

Contra-lateral routing of signals (CROS) devices re-route sound between the deaf and hearing ears of unilaterally-deaf individuals. This rerouting would be expected to disrupt access to monaural level cues that can support monaural localisation in the horizontal plane. However, such a detrimental effect has not been confirmed by clinical studies of CROS use. The present study aimed to exercise strict experimental control over the availability of monaural cues to localisation in the horizontal plane and the fitting of the CROS device to assess whether signal routing can impair the ability to locate sources of sound and, if so, whether CROS selectively disrupts monaural level or spectral cues to horizontal location, or both.

Design

Unilateral deafness and CROS device use were simulated in twelve normal hearing participants. Monaural recordings of broadband white noise presented from three spatial locations (−60°, 0°, and +60°) were made in the ear canal of a model listener using a probe microphone with and without a CROS device. The recordings were presented to participants via an insert earphone placed in their right ear. The recordings were processed to disrupt either monaural level or spectral cues to horizontal sound location by roving presentation level or the energy across adjacent frequency bands, respectively. Localisation ability was assessed using a three-alternative forced-choice spatial discrimination task.

Results

Participants localised above chance levels in all conditions. Spatial discrimination accuracy was poorer when participants only had access to monaural spectral cues compared to when monaural level cues were available. CROS use impaired localisation significantly regardless of whether level or spectral cues were available. For both cues, signal re-routing had a detrimental effect on the ability to localise sounds originating from the side of the deaf ear (−60°). CROS use also impaired the ability to use level cues to localise sounds originating from straight ahead (0°).

Conclusions

The re-routing of sounds can restrict access to the monaural cues that provide a basis for determining sound location in the horizontal plane. Perhaps encouragingly, the results suggest that both monaural level and spectral cues may not be disrupted entirely by signal re-routing and that it may still be possible to reliably identify sounds originating on the hearing side.

•

Rerouting sounds from a deaf ear to a hearing ear impairs monaural localisation.

•

Distinct effects of rerouting were observed on monaural level and spectral cues.

•

Rerouting disrupts level cues distinguishing sounds at 0° azimuth and at the deaf ear.

•

Rerouting selectively disrupts spectral cues that identify sounds at the deaf ear.

Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper

BACKGROUND

While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL.

METHODS

This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada.

RESULTS

A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable.

CONCLUSION

A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Single-sided deafness (SSD) represents one of the most difficult audiological conditions to rehabilitate. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the audiological benefits and quality of life of patients affected by SSD who had previously been users of the Alpha 1® when upgrading them to the Sophono Alpha 2® external processor (Boulder, Colo., USA). Nine patients were included in the study. They underwent physical examination, free-field speech audiometry at 40 and 60 dB, a hearing-in-noise test (Hirsch's test and the squelch test), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire, and a specific questionnaire on patient satisfaction with Alpha 1. Afterwards, the Alpha 2 external processor was delivered to all patients, and the above-mentioned protocol was repeated after 1 month with the Alpha 2. A statistically significant improvement was found in the speech discrimination score at 40 dB and in the squelch test when using the Alpha 2 external processor compared to the Alpha 1. Alpha 2 had a good clinical tolerance and gave similar results in the specific questionnaire and the GBI to Alpha 1. In conclusion, the new Alpha 2 external processor represents a safe and effective device for the rehabilitation of SSD, and there is an audiological benefit to upgrading to the Alpha 2 external processor for patients who had previously been users of the Alpha 1. The improvement in quality of life is similar to that with other bone-anchored hearing devices.

Cochlear Implantation and Single-sided Deafness: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Introduction Current data show that binaural hearing is superior to unilateral hearing, specifically in the understanding of speech in noisy environments. Furthermore, unilateral hearing reduce onés ability to localize sound.

Objectives This study provides a systematic review of recent studies to evaluate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) with regards to speech discrimination, sound localization and tinnitus suppression.

Data Synthesis We performed a search in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Lilacs databases to assess studies related to cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness. After critical appraisal, eleven studies were selected for data extraction and analysis of demographic, study design and outcome data.

Conclusion Although some studies have shown encouraging results on cochlear implantation and SSD, all fail to provide a high level of evidence. Larger studies are necessary to define the tangible benefits of cochlear implantation in patients with SSD.