Schauwecker N, Patro A, Holder JT, Bennett ML, Perkins E, Moberly AC. Cochlear Implant Qualification in Noise Versus Quiet: Do Patients Demonstrate Similar Postoperative Benefits?
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024;
170:1411-1420. [PMID:
38353294 DOI:
10.1002/ohn.677]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2023] [Revised: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 12/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/30/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess patient factors, audiometric performance, and patient-reported outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) patients who would not have qualified with in-quiet testing alone.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective chart review.
SETTING
Tertiary referral center.
METHODS
Adult CI recipients implanted between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Patients with preoperative AzBio Quiet > 60% in the implanted ear, requiring multitalker babble to qualify, comprised the in-noise qualifying (NQ) group. NQ postoperative performance was compared with the in-quiet qualifying (QQ) group using CNC, AzBio Quiet, and AzBio +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), Cochlear Implant Quality of Life scale (CIQOL-10), and daily device usage were also compared between the groups.
RESULTS
The QQ group (n = 771) and NQ group (n = 67) were similar in age and hearing loss duration. NQ had higher average preoperative and postoperative speech recognition scores. A larger proportion of QQ saw significant improvement in CNC and AzBio Quiet scores in the CI-only listening condition (eg, CI-only AzBio Quiet: 88% QQ vs 51% NQ, P < .001). Improvement in CI-only AzBio +5 dB and in all open set testing in the best-aided binaural listening condition was similar between groups (eg, Binaural AzBio Quiet 73% QQ vs 59% NQ, P = .345). Postoperative SSQ ratings, CIQOL scores, and device usage were also equivalent between both groups.
CONCLUSION
Patients who require in-noise testing to meet CI candidacy demonstrate similar improvements in best-aided speech perception and patient-reported outcomes as in-QQ, supporting the use of in-noise testing to determine CI qualification for borderline CI candidates.
Collapse