Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 272, Issue 12, pp 3685–3692 | Cite as

Quality of life and audiologic performance through the ability to phone of cochlear implant users

  • Cécile Rumeau
  • Julien Frère
  • Bettina Montaut-Verient
  • Alexis Lion
  • Gérome Gauchard
  • Cécile Parietti-Winkler
Otology

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life (QoL), using general and cochlear implant (CI) specific questionnaires and to determine the relationship of phone ability with QoL, speech recognition abilities and tinnitus. Twenty-six adult volunteers with a post-lingual profound deafness, unilaterally implanted with a CI, were included in this study. All subjects had used a CI for at least 1 year. The Glasgow benefit inventory (GBI) and Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire (NCIQ) were administered to assess QoL. Speech recognition was tested using phonemic Lafon’s lists. The subjective tinnitus severity scale (STSS) questionnaire was used to determine the effects of tinnitus. CI users were split into four groups according to their phone ability. There was an improvement in QoL after cochlear implantation. The NCIQ showed significant (p < 0.001) improvements in the total score and in all subdomains after CI. A significant relationship between phone ability, QoL and speech recognition was found. Improving phone ability led to higher QoL (p < 0.05) and speech recognition (p < 0.01) scores. The CI use decreased significantly the occurrence of tinnitus, but its severity was not correlated with QoL. Post-surgery assessment should include speech recognition measures and QoL evaluation. The NCIQ appeared more effective than the GBI in its ability to detect improvements in QoL. Assessing phone ability represents an easy and fast approach to evaluate hearing performances and QoL, and may reflect global outcomes of CI.

Keywords

Audiometry Cochlear implants Quality of life Tinnitus Phone ability 

Abbreviations

CI

Cochlear implant

GBI

Glasgow benefit inventory

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

NCIQ

Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire

QoL

Quality of life

STSS

Subjective tinnitus severity scale

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Elston J, Weiner G, Taylor RS, Hoyle M, Liu Z, Price A, Stein K (2009) The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 13(44):1–330. doi: 10.3310/hta13440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fugain C, Ouayoun M, Meyer B, Chouard CH (2000) Q.A.L.Y. index and assessment of cost efficiency of the cochlear implant in acquired profound deafness. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 117(1):3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman ML, deLissovoy G (1995) Cost effectiveness of the multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 16(1):52–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hallberg LR, Ringdahl A, Holmes A, Carver C (2005) Psychological general well-being (quality of life) in patients with cochlear implants: importance of social environment and age. Int J Audiol 44(12):706–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P (2000) Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123(6):756–765. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2000.108203 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hirschfelder A, Grabel S, Olze H (2008) The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life: the role of audiologic performance and variables. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138(3):357–362. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.10.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klop WM, Boermans PP, Ferrier MB, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH (2008) Clinical relevance of quality of life outcome in cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults. Otol Neurotol 29(5):615–621. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318172cfac CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knutson JF, Murray KT, Husarek S, Westerhouse K, Woodworth G, Gantz BJ, Tyler RS (1998) Psychological change over 54 months of cochlear implant use. Ear Hear 19(3):191–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krabbe PF, Hinderink JB, van den Broek P (2000) The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(3):864–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lassaletta L, Castro A, Bastarrica M, de Sarria MJ, Gavilan J (2006) Quality of life in postlingually deaf patients following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263(3):267–270. doi: 10.1007/s00405-005-0987-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mo B, Lindbaek M, Harris S (2005) Cochlear implants and quality of life: a prospective study. Ear Hear 26(2):186–194. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200504000-00006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH (1995) Preoperative predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: performance and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:105–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen SM, Labadie RF, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS (2004) Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(4):413–422. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.03.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damen GW, Beynon AJ, Krabbe PF, Mulder JJ, Mylanus EA (2007) Cochlear implantation and quality of life in postlingually deaf adults: long-term follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136(4):597–604. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.11.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peasgood A, Brookes N, Graham J (2003) Performance and benefit as outcome measures following cochlear implantation in non-traditional adult candidates: a pilot study. Cochlear Implants Int 4(4):171–190. doi: 10.1179/cim.2003.4.4.171 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Nardo W, Cantore I, Cianfrone F, Melillo P, Scorpecci A, Paludetti G (2007) Tinnitus modifications after cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264(10):1145–1149. doi: 10.1007/s00405-007-0352-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ito J, Sakakihara J (1994) Suppression of tinnitus by cochlear implantation. Am J Otolaryngol 15(2):145–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mo B, Harris S, Lindbaek M (2002) Tinnitus in cochlear implant patients—a comparison with other hearing-impaired patients. Int J Audiol 41(8):527–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olze H, Szczepek AJ, Haupt H, Forster U, Zirke N, Grabel S, Mazurek B (2011) Cochlear implantation has a positive influence on quality of life, tinnitus, and psychological comorbidity. Laryngoscope 121(10):2220–2227. doi: 10.1002/lary.22145 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quaranta N, Wagstaff S, Baguley DM (2004) Tinnitus and cochlear implantation. Int J Audiol 43(5):245–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruckenstein MJ, Hedgepeth C, Rafter KO, Montes ML, Bigelow DC (2001) Tinnitus suppression in patients with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 22(2):200–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson C, Lewis P, Stephens D (2002) The short form 36 (SF36) in a specialist tinnitus clinic. Int J Audiol 41(4):216–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eshraghi AA, Rodriguez M, Balkany TJ, Telischi FF, Angeli S, Hodges AV, Adil E (2009) Cochlear implant surgery in patients more than seventy-nine years old. Laryngoscope 119(6):1180–1183. doi: 10.1002/lary.20182 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kelsall DC, Shallop JK, Burnelli T (1995) Cochlear implantation in the elderly. Am J Otol 16(5):609–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cray JW, Allen RL, Stuart A, Hudson S, Layman E, Givens GD (2004) An investigation of telephone use among cochlear implant recipients. Am J Audiol 13(2):200–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tait M, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold S, O’Donoghue GM (2001) Use of the telephone in prelingually deaf children with a multichannel cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 22(1):47–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Boheim K, Nahler A, Arnoldner C, D’Haese P (2006) Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive? Int J Audiol 45(8):446–453. doi: 10.1080/14992020600690969 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105(6):415–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Portmann M, Portmann C (1978) Précis d’audiométrie clinique, 5th edn. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halford JB, Anderson SD (1991) Tinnitus severity measured by a subjective scale, audiometry and clinical judgement. J Laryngol Otol 105(2):89–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dorman MF, Dove H, Parkin J, Zacharchuk S, Dankowski K (1991) Telephone use by patients fitted with the Ineraid cochlear implant. Ear Hear 12(5):368–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Proops DW, Donaldson I, Cooper HR, Thomas J, Burrell SP, Stoddart RL, Moore A, Cheshire IM (1999) Outcomes from adult implantation, the first 100 patients. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 24:5–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baguley DM, Atlas MD (2007) Cochlear implants and tinnitus. Prog Brain Res 166:347–355. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)66033-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sampaio AL, Araujo MF, Oliveira CA (2011) New criteria of indication and selection of patients to cochlear implant. Int J Otolaryngol 2011:573968. doi: 10.1155/2011/573968 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Soleymani T, Pieton D, Pezeshkian P, Miller P, Gorgulho AA, Pouratian N, De Salles AA (2011) Surgical approaches to tinnitus treatment: a review and novel approaches. Surg Neurol Int 2:154. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.86834 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao F, Bai Z, Stephens D (2008) The relationship between changes in self-rated quality of life after cochlear implantation and changes in individual complaints. Clin Otolaryngol 33(5):427–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01773.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cécile Rumeau
    • 1
  • Julien Frère
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bettina Montaut-Verient
    • 1
  • Alexis Lion
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gérome Gauchard
    • 2
  • Cécile Parietti-Winkler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ENTUniversity Hospital of NancyNancyFrance
  2. 2.University of Lorraine, EA 3450 DevAH-Développement, Adaptation et Handicap-Faculty of Medicine and UFR STAPSNancyFrance
  3. 3.Sports Medicine Research LaboratoryPublic Research Centre for HealthLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations