Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 17(04): 370-374
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1352501
Original Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Prevalence of Contralateral Hearing Aid Use in Adults with Cochlear Implants

Cintia Tizue Yamaguchi
1   Division of Cochlear Implants, Department of Audiology, Clinic Hospital of the Medicine High School of the University of São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo/SP, Brazil
,
Maria Valéria Schmidt Goffi-Gomez
1   Division of Cochlear Implants, Department of Audiology, Clinic Hospital of the Medicine High School of the University of São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo/SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 September 2012

06 June 2013

Publication Date:
13 September 2013 (online)

Abstract

Introduction The exclusive use of a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear allows patients to effectively hear speech in a quiet environment. However, in environments with competing noise, the processing of multiple sounds becomes complex. In an attempt to promote binaural hearing in a noninvasive manner, the use of a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear is suggested for patients with a unilateral CI.

Aims To identify the prevalence of hearing aid use in the contralateral ear in adults who already have a CI; to determine the reasons why some patients do not use contralateral hearing aids (CHAs); and to analyze the effects of residual hearing in CHA users.

Materials and Methods This is a clinical study in 82 adult patients with CI implants who responded to a questionnaire designed to determine current use of CHA.

Results In our patient sample, 70 CHA nonusers were identified. The prevalence of CHA users was determined to be 12% with a 95% confidence interval of 11 to 13%. About 58.2% of the CHA nonusers reported a lack of noticeable benefit even after wearing hearing aids, and 23.6% reported not having received the option to use a CHA. CHA users had a pure tone average of 107-dB hearing level, whereas CHA nonusers had a pure tone average of 117-dB hearing level.

Conclusion The prevalence of the use of a CHA is low in our study. We attribute the low use of a CHA to either a lack of residual hearing or to a lack of benefit from the amplification.

 
  • References

  • 1 Bento FR, Neto RB, Castilho AM, Gómez VG, Giorgi SB, Guedes MC. Resultados auditivos com implante coclear multicanal em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2004; 70: 632-637
  • 2 Bevilacqua MC, Filho OC, Nascimento LT, Banhara MR. Evaluation of the combined use of hearing aid and cochlear implants in adults. Disturb Comun 2004; 16: 27-33
  • 3 Feuerstein JF. Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 80-86
  • 4 Lieu JE. Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 524-530
  • 5 Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices. Audiol Neurootol 2006; 11 (Suppl. 01) 6-11
  • 6 Offeciers E, Morera C, Müller J, Huarte A, Shallop J, Cavallé L. International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125: 918-919
  • 7 Hamzavi J, Pok SM, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner WD. Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 61-65
  • 8 Potts LG, Skinner MW, Litovsky RA, Strube MJ, Kuk F. Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20: 353-373
  • 9 Fitzpatrick EM, Leblanc S. Exploring the factors influencing discontinued hearing aid use in patients with unilateral cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 2010; 14: 199-210
  • 10 Cullington HE, Zeng FG. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification. Ear Hear 2011; 32: 16-30
  • 11 Gomez MVSG, Guedes MC, Sant'Anna SBG , et al. Medical and audiological selection criteria and evaluation for cochlear implants candidates: HC-FMUSP protocol. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004; 8: 295-303
  • 12 Davis H, Silverman RS. Hearing and Deafness. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson; 1970
  • 13 Seeber UB, Baumann U, Fastl H. Localization ability with bimodal hearing aids and bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 1699-1709
  • 14 Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt SA. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 668-680
  • 15 Kong YY, Stickney GS, Zeng FG. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117 (3 Pt 1) 1351-1361
  • 16 Vandali AE, Sucher C, Tsang DJ, McKay CM, Chew JW, McDermott HJ. Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117: 3126-3138
  • 17 Ching TY, Psarros C, Hill M, Dillon H, Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear?. Ear Hear 2001; 22: 365-380