H-Index
79
Scimago Lab
powered by Scopus
JCR
Clarivate
Analytics
12%
Acceptance
Rate
call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon-Fri 10 am - 2 pm EST

Logo

Medical Science Monitor Basic Research
AmJCaseRep

Annals
ISI-Home

eISSN: 1643-3750

Get your full text copy in PDF

Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Prelingually Deafened Adults with and without Sound Deprivation: Are There Differences in Quality of Life?

Andrea Canale, Francesco Macocco, Drita Ndrev, Giulia Gabella, Gitana Scozzari, Roberto Albera, Giancarlo Pecorari, Andrea Albera

(Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy)

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e930232

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.930232


BACKGROUND: Indications for cochlear implantation (CI) are constantly being updated, and with them, the audiometric results achieved by patients. Patient satisfaction should always be considered, even in patients with lower audiological results. The aim of the present study was to compare quality of life (QoL), self-perceived hearing benefit, and audiometric results between prelingually and postlingually deafened patients, with and without sound deprivation, after CI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample included 46 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss: 22 postlingually deafened and 24 prelingually deafened, further subdivided into sound-deprived (n=10) and non-sound-deprived (n=14). Auditory performance was evaluated with pure tone audiometry, speech recognition scores (SRS), and self-perceived hearing benefit, whereas QoL was evaluated with 2 self-reported questionnaires (Comprehensive Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF).
RESULTS: Audiometric results were worse in the prelingually deafened than in the postlingually deafened group, and worse in the prelingually deafened patients with sound deprivation. There was no marked difference in perceived CI benefit or QoL between the 2 groups or within the 2 prelingually deafened subgroups. No correlation was found between SRS and duration of CI use or between QoL and SRS in the prelingually and postlingually deafened groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate better auditory performance for the postlingually deafened group and no differences in perceived QoL or benefit of CI between the groups. The sound-deprived patients had equal scores on the perceived QoL questionnaire. These analyses suggest that sound-deprived, prelingually deafened patients may benefit from CI.

This paper has been published under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.
I agree