Effectiveness of Frequency-Lowering Hearing Aids and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant for Treating People with a Severe-To-Profound High-Frequency Hearing Loss

Satisfaction and quality of life in cochlear implant users with long sensory deprivation

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to verify the level of satisfaction of CI users with long periods of hearing deprivation, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the use of the device and their quality of life.

METHODS

This is a analytical research, of the type observational cross-sectional study. The study was performed with 24 patients from a private Institute of Otorhinolaryngology. Three surveys were applied: Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), International Outcome Inventory - Cochlear Implant (IOI - CI) to assess cochlear implant satisfaction and WHOQOL- bref to assess the quality of life. The results in the pre and post lingual groups were compared.

RESULTS

The highest degree of satisfaction was reported with regard to personal image, positive effects, and how the users feel about their CI. The lowest degree of satisfaction was reported regarding the cost-benefit of the CI and the competitive noise. In the WHOQOL-bref assessment, the highest scores were found in physical, psychological and social relations domains. When comparing the results of the surveys, the pre and post-lingual groups showed no difference in relation to the achieved scores.

CONCLUSION

The participants had a high level of satisfaction with the use of cochlear implants. The longer the sensory deprivation time, the greater the degree of satisfaction with the device. The use of the CI electronic device reflects on the individual's quality of life.

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial exploring the efficacy of frequency lowering hearing aids in patients with high-frequency hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

Whether linear frequency transposition (LFT) assists individuals with hearing difficulties has been studied for years, but no reliable comparison between LFT hearing aids (HAs) and conventional compression-type HAs has been conducted. Herein, we report on the first, relevant, double-blind, randomized controlled trial on this topic using a large sample size. We compared the efficacies of LFT HAs to those of compression-type HAs in patients with high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL); we also reviewed the literature.

METHODS

A total of 103 patients were randomized into three groups: conventional HAs featuring wide dynamic range compression (control group); HAs featuring LFT (LFT group); and HAs employing both LFT and wide dynamic range compression of high frequencies (combined group). Pure tone averages (PTAs), speech recognition thresholds (SRTs), word recognition scores (WRSs), and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) inventories were assessed at the initial visit and after 3 months of HA use. Subject preferences in terms of continued use of their HAs were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The PTA, SRT, and WRS scores significantly improved in all three groups. No significant among-group differences were evident. The APHAB score significantly improved only in the control group; HA future-use preference was also highest in this group.

CONCLUSION

LFT did not provide an additional benefit for subjects with HFHL over conventional amplification and users preferred conventional HAs featuring wide dynamic range compression.