Cochlear implants international · 2023
Postoperative optimization of cochlear implantation for single sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Andren Kristofer G, Duffin Kevin, Ryan Matthew T, Riley Charles A, Tolisano Anthony M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).
DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Scopus.
REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.
RESULTS: 32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.
DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Scopus.
REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.
RESULTS: 32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.