Impact of unilateral vs. bilateral evaluation on cochlear implant candidacy

References

• Buchman CA, Gifford RH, Haynes DS, et al. Unilateral cochlear implants for severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review and consensus statements. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(10):942–953. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AWMF. Leitlinien: cochlea-Implantat Versorgung und Zentral-Auditorische Implantate. 2020. Available online: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/017-071l_S2k_Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung-zentral-auditorische-Implantate_20 20-12.pdf. (accessed on 1 June 2023).
   Google Scholar
• van der Straaten TFK, Briaire JJ, Vickers D, et al. Selection criteria for cochlear implantation in the United Kingdom and flanders: toward a less restrictive standard. Ear Hear. 2021;42(1):68–75. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snel-Bongers J, Netten AP, Boermans PBM, et al. Evidence-based inclusion criteria for cochlear implantation in patients with postlingual deafness. Ear Hear. 2018;39(5):1008–1014. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe U, Hocke T, Hast A, et al. Maximum preimplantation monosyllabic score as predictor of cochlear implant outcome. HNO. 2019;67(Suppl 2):62–68. doi: 10.1007/s00106-019-0648-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huinck WJ, Mylanus EAM, Snik AFM. Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(5):1313–1320. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05358-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng AK, Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(11):1214–1218. doi: 10.1001/archotol.125.11.1214.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neve OM, Boerman JA, van den Hout WB, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of cochlear implants: a societal perspective. Ear Hear. 2021;42(5):1338–1350. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cochlear Implants for Children and Adults with Severe to Profound Deafness. 2019. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta566. (accessed on 2 January 2024).
   Google Scholar
• De Raeve L, Archbold S, Lehnhardt-Goriany M, et al. Prevalence of cochlear implants in Europe: trend between 2010 and 2016. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020;21(5):275–280. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2020.1771829.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T. Audiometry-based screening procedure for cochlear implant candidacy. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(6):1001–1005. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Raeve L, Wouters J. Accessibliity to cochlear implants inelgiumm: state of the art on selection, reimbursement, habilitation, and outcomes in children and adults. Cochlear Implant Int. 2013;14(sup1):S18–S25. doi: 10.1179/1467010013Z.00000000078.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vickers DA, Riley A, Ricaud R, et al. Preliminary assessment of the feasibility of using AB words to assess candidacy in adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17 Suppl 1(sup1):17–21. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1161143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dörfler C, Hocke T, Hast A, et al. Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms: english version. HNO. 2020;68(Suppl 2):93–99. doi: 10.1007/s00106-020-00843-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T. Speech perception in bilateral hearing aid users with different grades of asymmetric hearing loss. Frontiers Neurosci. 2022;15:715660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe U, Hocke T, Digeser F. Bimodal benefit for cochlear implant listeners with different grades of hearing loss in the opposite ear. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(8):713–721. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2018.1444281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer A, Rieck JH, Mewes A, et al. Extended preoperative speech audiometric diagnostics for cochlear implant treatment. HNO. 2023;71(12):779–786. doi: 10.1007/s00106-023-01344-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRackan TR, Ahlstrom JB, Clinkscales WB, et al. Clinical implications of word recognition differences in earphone and aided conditions. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(10):1475–1481. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Burton JA, et al. Earphone and aided word recognition differences in cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(7):e543–e549. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thangavelu K, Nitzge M, Weiß RM, et al. Role of cochlear reserve in adults with cochlear implants following post-lingual hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;280(3):1063–1071. doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07558-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieck JH, Beyer A, Mewes A, et al. Extended preoperative audiometry for outcome prediction and risk analysis in patients ­receiving cochlear implants. J Clin Med. 2023;12(9):3262. doi: 10.3390/jcm12093262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe U, Hast A, Hornung J, et al. Evolving a model for cochlear implant outcome. J Clin Med. 2023;12(19):6215. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier H, Lenarz T, Agha-Mir-Salim P, et al. Consensus statement on bone conduction devices and active Middle ear implants in conductive and mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(5):513–529. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snik ADFM, Mylanus EAM, Proops DW, et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2005;195(12_suppl):2–12. doi: 10.1177/0003489405114s1201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arndt S, Wesarg T, Aschendorff A, et al. Prediction of speech understanding with the transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®. German Version. HNO. 2024; 72(1):1–9 doi: 10.1007/s00106-023-01336-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herr C, Stöver T, Baumann U, et al. Comparison of hearing performance in patients with borderline indication for active Middle ear or cochlear implants: clinical outcomes to guide preoperative ounselling and decision making. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08491-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaegen VJO, Mulder JJS, Mylanus EAM, et al. Profound mixed hearing loss: bone-anchored hearing aid system or cochlear implant? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(10):693–697. doi: 10.1177/000348940911801002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier H, Lenarz T, Dolležal L-V, et al. Direct acoustic cochlear implants lead to an improved speech perception gap compared to conventional hearing aid. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(9):1147–1152. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwartenkot JW, Snik ADFM, Mylanus EA, et al. Amplification options for patients with mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(2):221–226. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahne T, Plontke SK. [Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: an audiological comparison of current hearing systems]. HNO. 2016;64(2):91–100. doi: 10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahne T, Plontke SK. Systematic and audiological indication criteria for bone conduction devices and active Middle ear implants. Hear Res. 2022;421:108424. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenfelt S, Goode RL. Transmission properties of bone conducted sound: measurements in cadaver heads. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(4):2373–2391. doi: 10.1121/1.2005847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Illg A, Bräcker T, Batsoulis C, et al. CI decision making and expectations by older adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2022;23(3):139–147. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2021.2019522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans Böckler Stiftung. Arbeitslosigkeit im Alter bleibt oft verdeckt. 2020. Available online: https://www.boeckler.de/data/Seiten%20aus%20impuls_2020_02_S3.pdf. (accessed on 2 January 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Adams JK, Marinelli JP, De Jong R, et al. Modern trends in otologic surgery and implications for residency training. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024; doi: 10.1002/ohn.654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beutner D, Delb W, Frenzel H, et al. Guideline ‘implantable hearing aids’-short version: german S2k guideline of the working group of German-Speaking Audiologists, Neurootologists and Otologists (ADANO), of the German Society of Oto-Rhino-laryngology, head and neck surgery (DGHNO) in collaboration with the German Society of Audiology (DGA), the German Society of Phoniatrics and Pediatric Audiology (DGPP), and patient representatives. HNO. 2018;66(Suppl 2):71–76. doi: 10.1007/s00106-018-0533-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franke-Trieger A, Lailach S, Shetty J, et al. Word recognition with a cochlear implant in relation to prediction and electrode position. J Clin Med. 2024;13(1):183. doi: 10.3390/jcm13010183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patro A, Lindquist NR, Holder JT, et al. Further evidence for individual ear consideration in cochlear implant candidacy evaluation. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(9):1033–1040. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firszt JB, Holden LK, Dwyer NY, et al. Asymmetric hearing loss in adult cochlear implant recipients: results and recommendations from a multisite prospective clinical trial. Ear Hear. 2023;44(5):1140–1156. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Straaten TFK, Burger AVM, Briaire JJ, et al. Diagnostic value of preoperative measures in selecting post-lingually deafened candidates for cochlear implantation - a different approach. Int J Audiol. 2023;62(10):983–991. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2022.2106453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar