Views: 1,575 | Downloads:
155
| Responses: 0
| XML | Respond to this article | Alert & updates | Request permissions | Email to a friend |
Original ArticleOpen Access
Audiological Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Ramathibodi Hospital
Kasemsuwan L 
,
Cheewaruangroj W ,
Tungkeeratichai J ,
Bhongmakapat T ,
Lertsukprasert K ,
Thawin C ,
Tiravanitchakul R ,
Dara R ,
Orathai P
,
Cheewaruangroj W ,
Tungkeeratichai J ,
Bhongmakapat T ,
Lertsukprasert K ,
Thawin C ,
Tiravanitchakul R ,
Dara R ,
Orathai P Materials and Method: Retrospective study of hearing response follow in three, six, and 12 months of 143 ears undergoing
cochlear implantation between 1995 and 2009. Only 77 ears were found to have the completed data for analysis. Deaf patients
were categorized into five groups in which they were operated by four different cochlear implant devices. The two parameters
used to evaluate the outcomes included the aided response (AR), assessing the hearing threshold of cochlear implant user, and
the Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) which assess their auditory receptive abilities.
Results: Demographic data showed male: female ratio was 4:3. Age ranged from 2 to 68 years. Although the aided hearing
threshold among five groups of deafness showed improvement without statistical difference, the auditory ability showed
significance higher score in post-lingual than pre-lingual deaf patients (p < 0.05). Patients with aural communication prior
to surgery also showed higher auditory ability than those without aural communication (p < 0.05). The outcomes of CAP were
analyzed among patients operated with different cochlear implant devices. Users with Pulsar CI 100 Opus 2, HiRes 90K
Auria, and HiRes 90 K Harmony showed better auditory ability than with Combi 40+ Tempo+. Both mean scores of AR
and CAP were higher at six and 12 months than at three months. At 12 months the scores were higher than at six months
(p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Cochlear implant surgery resulted in good hearing, however the improvement of speech understanding need
more time to practice. Patients using cochlear implant at 12 months showed more improvement of hearing and performance
than those using for less than 12 months.
Keywords: Cochlear implant, Audiological outcome, Aided response, Categories of auditory performance
cochlear implantation between 1995 and 2009. Only 77 ears were found to have the completed data for analysis. Deaf patients
were categorized into five groups in which they were operated by four different cochlear implant devices. The two parameters
used to evaluate the outcomes included the aided response (AR), assessing the hearing threshold of cochlear implant user, and
the Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) which assess their auditory receptive abilities.
Results: Demographic data showed male: female ratio was 4:3. Age ranged from 2 to 68 years. Although the aided hearing
threshold among five groups of deafness showed improvement without statistical difference, the auditory ability showed
significance higher score in post-lingual than pre-lingual deaf patients (p < 0.05). Patients with aural communication prior
to surgery also showed higher auditory ability than those without aural communication (p < 0.05). The outcomes of CAP were
analyzed among patients operated with different cochlear implant devices. Users with Pulsar CI 100 Opus 2, HiRes 90K
Auria, and HiRes 90 K Harmony showed better auditory ability than with Combi 40+ Tempo+. Both mean scores of AR
and CAP were higher at six and 12 months than at three months. At 12 months the scores were higher than at six months
(p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Cochlear implant surgery resulted in good hearing, however the improvement of speech understanding need
more time to practice. Patients using cochlear implant at 12 months showed more improvement of hearing and performance
than those using for less than 12 months.
Keywords: Cochlear implant, Audiological outcome, Aided response, Categories of auditory performance
Download:
PDF