HNO · 2023
Evaluative audiometry after cochlear implant provision.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dziemba Oliver C, Merz Stephan, Hocke Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: One of the main treatment goals in cochlear implant (CI) patients is to improve speech perception. One of the target parameters is speech intelligibility in quiet. However, treatment results show a high variability, which has not been sufficiently explained so far. The aim of this noninterventional retrospective study was to elucidate this variability using a selected population of patients in whom etiology was not expected to have a negative impact on postoperative speech intelligibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Audiometric findings of the CI follow-up of 28 adult patients after 6 months of CI experience were evaluated. These were related to the preoperative audiometric examination and evaluated with respect to a recently published predictive model for the postoperative monosyllabic score.
RESULTS: Inclusion of postoperative categorical loudness scaling and hearing loss for Freiburg numbers in the model explained 55% of the variability in fitting outcomes with respect to monosyllabic word recognition.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that much of the cause of variability in fitting outcomes can be captured by systematic postoperative audiometric checks. Immediate conclusions for CI system fitting adjustments may be drawn from these results. However, the extent to which these are accepted by individual patients and thus lead to an improvement in outcome must be subject of further studies, preferably prospective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Audiometric findings of the CI follow-up of 28 adult patients after 6 months of CI experience were evaluated. These were related to the preoperative audiometric examination and evaluated with respect to a recently published predictive model for the postoperative monosyllabic score.
RESULTS: Inclusion of postoperative categorical loudness scaling and hearing loss for Freiburg numbers in the model explained 55% of the variability in fitting outcomes with respect to monosyllabic word recognition.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that much of the cause of variability in fitting outcomes can be captured by systematic postoperative audiometric checks. Immediate conclusions for CI system fitting adjustments may be drawn from these results. However, the extent to which these are accepted by individual patients and thus lead to an improvement in outcome must be subject of further studies, preferably prospective.