HNO

, 59:437

Einseitige Taubheit und Cochlear-implant-Versorgung

Audiologische Diagnostik und Ergebnisse
  • S. Arndt
  • R. Laszig
  • A. Aschendorff
  • R. Beck
  • C. Schild
  • F. Hassepaß
  • G. Ihorst
  • S. Kroeger
  • P. Kirchem
  • T. Wesarg
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Die Versorgung mit einem Cochlear implant (CI) stellt eine neue Behandlungsform in der Rehabilitation der einseitigen Taubheit dar. Vor Indikationsstellung zur CI-Versorgung sind die Aufklärung der Patienten über die Rehabilitationsalternativen und eine gründliche Voruntersuchung notwendig. Bislang haben wir 28 Patienten mit einem CI versorgt. Das Sprachverständnis im Störgeräusch und das Lokalisationsvermögen waren bei 11 Patienten 12 Monate nach CI-Implantation im Vergleich zu konventionellen CROS-Hörgeräten („contralateral routing of signal“), dem BAHA („bone-anchored hearing aid“) und der unversorgten Situation signifikant besser. Zusätzlich ermittelten wir das subjektive Handicap („Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly“, HHIE) und den subjektiven Erfolg („International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids“, IOI-HA; „Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale“, SSQ) nach jeder Versorgungsoption, auch hierbei zeigte sich ein deutlicher Nutzen durch das CI. Die sorgfältige Patientenselektion ist ein entscheidender Faktor für die erfolgreiche Therapie. Dann ist mit einem CI bei einseitiger Ertaubung eine signifikante Verbesserung des Sprachverständnisses und des Lokalisationsvermögens möglich.

Schlüsselwörter

Cochlear implant Einseitige Taubheit BAHA CROS Hörgeräte 

Unilateral deafness and cochlear implantation

Audiological diagnostic evaluation and outcomes

Abstract

Cochlear implantation (CI) is a new form of treatment in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness. The patient requires thorough initial examination and a full explanation of alternative treatment options prior to determining the indication for CI treatment. To date, we have treated 28 patients with CI, of whom data are available for 11 after 12 months. We examined speech comprehension in background noise and localisation ability 12 months after CI implantation compared to conventional CROS (contralateral routing of signal) hearing aids, BAHA (bone-anchored hearing aid) and hearing in untreated patients. In addition, we determined the subjective handicap (HHIE, hearing handicap inventory for the elderly) and the subjective success (IOI-HA, international outcome inventory for hearing aids; SSQ, spatial and qualities of hearing scale) of each treatment option. After 12 months’ experience, the results show a significantly better localisation ability and an improvement in speech comprehension in background noise with CI than with the other treatment options. Subjective results also show a clear benefit with CI. Careful patient selection is a decisive factor for successful treatment of this patient group. Under these conditions, CI is a treatment option with which significant improvement in speech comprehension and localization ability in single-sided deafness is possible.

Keywords

Cochlear implant Unilateral hearing loss BAHA CROS Hearing aids 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R et al (2011) Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 32(1):39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnoldner C, Helbig S, Wagenblast J et al (2010) Electric acoustic stimulation in patients with postlingual severe high-frequency hearing loss: clinical experience. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 67:116–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertoli S, Probst R, Jordan P (1996) Hearing handicap – an addition to audiometric hearing loss. Results of an exploratory study of auditory communication disorders in the elderly. HNO 44(7):376–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bess FH, Tharpe AM (1988) Performance and management of children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Scand Audiol Suppl 30:75–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buechner A, Brendel M, Lesinski-Schiedat A et al (2010) Cochlear implantation in unilateral deaf subjects associated with ipsilateral tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 31(9):1381–1385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox RM, Alexander GC (2000) Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 11(7):368–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eapen RJ, Buss E, Adunka MC et al (2009) Hearing-in-noise benefits after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continue to improve 4 years after implantation. Otol Neurotol 30:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller K (2004) Expanding cochlear implant technology: Combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Cochlear Implants Int 5(Suppl 1):8–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43(2):85–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hochmair Desoyer I, Schulz E et al (1997) The HSM Sentence Test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 18(Suppl 6):83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iwaki T, Blamey P, Kubo T (2008) Bimodal studies using adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO) technology. Int J Audiol 47:311–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laske RD, Veraguth D, Dillier N et al (2009) Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults. Otol Neurotol 30:313–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Stecker M et al (2004) Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results. Otol Neurotol 25(6):958–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lenarz T, Ver T, Buechner A et al (2009) Hearing conservation surgery using the hybrid-L electrode. Audiol Neurootol 14:22–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieu JE (2004) Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(5):524–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Probst R (2008) Cochlear implantation for unilateral deafness? HNO 56:886–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quaranta N, Wagstaff S, Baguley DM (2004) Tinnitus and cochlear implantation. Int J Audiol 43(5):245–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruscetta MN, Arjmand EM, Pratt SR (2005) Speech recognition abilities in noise for children with severe-to-profound unilateral hearing impairment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 69(6):771–779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schoen F, Mueller J, Helms J, Nopp P (2005) Sound localization and sensitivity to interaural cues in bilateral users of the Med-El Combi 40/40+cochlear implant system. Otol Neurotol 26(3):429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slattery WH III, Middlebrooks JC (1994) Monaural sound localization: acute versus chronic unilateral impairment. Hear Res 75(1–2):38–46Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sucher CM, McDermott HJ (2009) Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int 10(Suppl 1):96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tharpe AM (2008) Unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss in children: past and current perspectives. Trends Amplif 12(1):7–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van den Broek E, Dunnebier EA (2009) Cochlear implantation in postlingually hearing-impaired adults: choosing the most appropriate ear. Int J Audiol 48(9):618–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Wanrooij MM, Van Opstal AJ (2004) Contribution of head shadow and pinna cues to chronic monaural sound localization. J Neurosci 24(17):4163–4171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vermeire K, Van de Heyning HP (2009) Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol 14(3):163–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Development and evaluation of a German sentence test: Part III. Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol 38:86–95Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM (1986) Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. Ear Hear 7(5):295–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wie OB, Pripp AH, Tvete O (2010) Unilateral deafness in adults: effects on communication and social interaction. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119(11):772–781PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Arndt
    • 1
  • R. Laszig
    • 1
  • A. Aschendorff
    • 1
  • R. Beck
    • 1
  • C. Schild
    • 1
  • F. Hassepaß
    • 1
  • G. Ihorst
    • 2
  • S. Kroeger
    • 1
  • P. Kirchem
    • 1
  • T. Wesarg
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde und PoliklinikUniversitätsklinikum FreiburgFreiburgDeutschland
  2. 2.StudienzentrumUniversitätsklinikum FreiburgFreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations