Koklear implantasyonlu hastalarda işitme performanslarının karşılaştırılması

Year 2002, Volume: 9 Issue: 5, 342 - 345, 10.10.2002

Emre Yücel Meryem Nesil Keleş Türel Mehmet Ali Solmaz Kemal Değer Ayşen Erdil

Abstract

Amaç: Koklear implant uygulanan hastalarda konuflmayı algılama düzeylerini belirlemek ve iflitmekaybı süresi, implant tipi ve bakteriyel menenjitinhastanın iflitme performansı üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmek.Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Koklear implantasyon uygulanan 21 hastaya üç bölümlük iflitsel anlama testi uygulandı. Hastaların testte gösterdikleri bafları, tek- veya çok-kanallı implant kullanımı, iflitme kaybı süresi,iflitme kaybının etyolojik nedenleri açısından değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Ortalama bafları puanı 74.6 dağılım 49100 düzeyinde bulundu. Tek-kanallı ve çok-kanallıimplant kullanan olgular arasında performans açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık görülmedi.İflitme kaybı süresi, ortalama sürenin 8.2 yıl altındaolan 12 olguda performans testindeki bafları ortalaması 85.7; üzerindeki dokuz olguda ise 59.6 bulundu p=0.001 . Postmenenjitik iflitme kaybı olan dokuz olgunun testteki baflarısı 61.9 diğer etyolojileresahip olguların 84.1 baflarısından anlamlı derecede düflüktü p= 0.001 .Sonuç: Koklear implantlı hastalarda daha iyi iflitmeperformansı için iflitme kaybının erken tanısı ve olguların rehabilitasyonu önem taflımaktadır

Keywords

Koklear hastalıklar/cerrahi, koklearimplant, sağırlık/rehabilitasyon, konuflmayı algılama

Evaluation of hearing performance in cochlear implant patients

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the speech perception levels of cochlear implant patients and to evaluate the possible effects of implant type, duration of deafness, and bacterial meningitis on the patients’ hear­ ing performance.Patients and Methods: A three-section test battery on speech perception was administered to 21 cochlear implant patients 12 males, 9 females; mean age 25 years; range 9 to 40 years . The patients’ performance was assessed with respect to single- or multichannel implant design, duration of hearing loss, and etiologic factors of hearing loss.Results: The overall mean success score was 74.6 range 49-100 . No significant difference was found between patients using single- or multi-channel implants. The mean score of 12 patients whose dura­ tion of hearing loss was below the average 8.2 years was significantly higher than those of nine patients with a longer history of hearing loss 85.7 versus 59.6, p=0.001 . Patients with meningitis-associated hearing loss exhibited a significantly lower performance than those presenting with other etiologic factors 61.9 ver­ sus 84.1, p=0.001 .Conclusion: Early diagnosis and rehabilitation are essential to achieve better performance following cochlear implantation.

Keywords

Cochlear diseases/surgery, cochlear implants, deafness/rehabilitation, speech perception

References

• Ito J, Takagi A, Kawano M, Takahashi H, Honjo I. Results with the currently used cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:298-300.
• Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Tye-Murray N, Fryauf-Bertschy H. Long-term results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenitally deaf children. In: Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES, editors. Advances in cochlear implants. Wien: Manz; 1994. p. 528-33.
• Hochmair-Desoyer IJ. Results from better postlingual adult users of the MED-EL devices. In: Hochmair- Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES, editors. Advances in cochlear implants. Wien: Manz; 1994. p. 363-9.
• Bredberg G, Lindstrom B. Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication perfor- mance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel- implanted patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:256-8.
• Nadol JB Jr. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117:220-8.
• Erdil AA, Hoflgör R. Cochlear implant iflitme rehabili- tasyon programı. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınevi; 1995.
• Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Fisher SG. An experimental comparison of cochlear implant systems. Semin Hearing 1992;13:195-207.
• Slattery WH 3rd, Luxford WM. Cochlear implantation in the congenital malformed cochlea. Laryngoscope 1995; 105:1184-7.
• Nadol JB Jr, Young YS, Glynn RJ. Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:411-6.
• Moore JK, Niparko JK, Miller MR, Linthicum FH. Effect of profound hearing loss on a central auditory nucleus. Am J Otol 1994;15:588-95.
• M o o re JK, Niparko JK, Perazzo LM, Miller MR, Linthicum FH. Effect of adult-onset deafness on the human central auditory system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106:385-90.
• Kemink JL, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kileny PR, Firszt JB, Novak MA. Auditory performance of children with cochlear ossification and partial implant insertion. Laryngoscope 1992;102:1001-5.
• Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ. Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants. In: Fraysee B, Deguine O, editors. Cochlear implants: new perspectives. Basel: Karger; 1993. p. 4 9 - 5 8 .