Audiometry-Based Screening Procedure for Cochlear Implant Candidacy

被引:59
作者
Hoppe, Ulrich [1 ]
Hast, Anne [1 ]
Hocke, Thomas [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Erlangen Nurnberg, Dept Audiol, ENT Clin, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
[2] Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Hannover, Germany
关键词
Candidacy; Cochlear implants; Hearing aids; Indications; Screening; Speech audiometry; UNILATERAL DEAFNESS; HEARING; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.1097/MAO.0000000000000730
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective This study defines a screening procedure for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy in hearing aid users by using simple audiometric measures. Methods Within this retrospective study, hearing aid performance and audiometric measures in 185 subjects (318 ears) were analyzed. By means of a linear Naive Bayes classifier, the pure-tone average and the maximum monosyllabic score (PBmax) were used to predict the aided monosyllabic word score and CI candidacy. Results The two parameters PBmax and four-frequency hearing threshold average can be used to predict speech perception with hearing aids with reasonable accuracy for screening purposes. The classification has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 91%. The classification can be represented by a simple linear formula. Conclusion CI candidacy can be predicted based on commonly used audiometric measures. Cochlear implant candidacy may be considered if the difference between the average pure-tone threshold (in decibels) and PBmax (in percent) exceeds 8.
引用
收藏
页码:1001 / 1005
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] How is the Children's Implant Profile used in the Cochlear Implant Candidacy Process?
    Lazaridis, Evelyn
    Therres, MaryKay
    Marsh, Roger R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2010, 74 (04) : 412 - 415
  • [12] Neurocognitive Factors Contributing to Cochlear Implant Candidacy
    Moberly, Aaron C.
    Castellanos, Irina
    Mattingly, Jameson K.
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2018, 39 (10) : E1010 - E1018
  • [13] Evidence for the Expansion of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidacy
    Carlson, Matthew L.
    Sladen, Douglas P.
    Haynes, David S.
    Driscoll, Colin L.
    DeJong, Melissa D.
    Erickson, Hannah C.
    Sunderhaus, Linsey W.
    Hedley-Williams, Andrea
    Rosenzweig, Elizabeth A.
    Davis, Timothy J.
    Gifford, Rene H.
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2015, 36 (01) : 43 - 50
  • [14] Evaluative audiometry after cochlear implant provision
    Dziemba, Oliver C.
    Merz, Stephan
    Hocke, Thomas
    HNO, 2024, 72 (SUPPL 1) : 56 - 62
  • [15] Determining cochlear implant candidacy in children with residual hearing: A scoping review
    Pignac, Sarah
    Sygal, Ninell
    Biglari, Maryam
    Olds, Janet
    Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2024, 177
  • [16] Access to cochlear implant candidacy evaluations: Who is not making it to the team evaluations?
    Wiley, Susan
    Meinzen-Derr, Jareen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2009, 48 (02) : 74 - 79
  • [17] American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force: Recommendations for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults
    Zeitler, Daniel M.
    Prentiss, Sandra M.
    Sydlowski, Sarah A.
    Dunn, Camille C.
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 2024, 134 : S1 - S14
  • [18] Machine Learning to Predict Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy
    Patro, Ankita
    Freeman, Michael H.
    Haynes, David S.
    CURRENT OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY REPORTS, 2024, 12 (03) : 45 - 49
  • [19] Considerations for a Revised Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy Evaluation Protocol
    Biever, Allison
    Amurao, Carly
    Mears, Megan
    OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2021, 42 (01) : 159 - 164
  • [20] Candidacy for Cochlear implantation: Validating a novel Cochlear implant candidacy calculator against gold-standard, in-clinic audiometric assessments
    So, Raymond J.
    Padova, Dominic
    Bowditch, Stephen
    Agrawal, Yuri
    LARYNGOSCOPE INVESTIGATIVE OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2022, 7 (03): : 835 - 839