CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20232021021en
CoDAS
Original Article

Satisfaction and quality of life in cochlear implant users with long sensory deprivation

Alleluia Lima Losno Ledesma; Kétlim dos Santos Evangelista; Driely Maria Leandro de Alexandria; Jéssica da Silva Sales; Fernanda Ferreira Caldas; Fayez Bahmad Júnior

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232021021en CoDAS, vol.35, n4, e20210021, 2023
PDF
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 503

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to verify the level of satisfaction of CI users with long periods of hearing deprivation, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the use of the device and their quality of life.

Methods

This is a analytical research, of the type observational cross-sectional study. The study was performed with 24 patients from a private Institute of Otorhinolaryngology. Three surveys were applied: Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), International Outcome Inventory - Cochlear Implant (IOI - CI) to assess cochlear implant satisfaction and WHOQOL- bref to assess the quality of life. The results in the pre and post lingual groups were compared.

Results

The highest degree of satisfaction was reported with regard to personal image, positive effects, and how the users feel about their CI. The lowest degree of satisfaction was reported regarding the cost-benefit of the CI and the competitive noise. In the WHOQOL-bref assessment, the highest scores were found in physical, psychological and social relations domains. When comparing the results of the surveys, the pre and post-lingual groups showed no difference in relation to the achieved scores.

Conclusion

The participants had a high level of satisfaction with the use of cochlear implants. The longer the sensory deprivation time, the greater the degree of satisfaction with the device. The use of the CI electronic device reflects on the individual's quality of life.

Keywords

Cochlear Implants; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Hearing Loss; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural

References

  1. Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L, Vasil K, Wucinich T, Pisoni DB, et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: are we measuring the right things? Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):959-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.26791 PMid:28776711.
  2. Buarque LFSFP, Brazorotto JS, Cavalcanti HG, et al. Satisfaction of cochlear implant users with post-lingual hearing loss. Rev CEFAC. 2014;16(4):1078-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620144513
  3. Punch JL, Hitt R, Smith SW. Hearing loss and quality of life. J Commun Disord. 2019;78(1):33-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.01.001 PMid:30639959.
  4. Hotton M, Bergeron F. Effectiveness of frequency-lowering hearing aids and electric acoustic stimulation cochlear implant for treating people with a severe-to-profound highfrequency hearing loss. J Otolaryngol ENT Res. 2017;6(3):00162. http://dx.doi.org/10.15406/joentr.2017.06.00162
  5. Cavalcante MC, Bittencourt IGS, Vieira ACS, Carneiro JN, Teixeira LM. The scenario of researches regarding life experiences with cochlear implants: an integrative literature review. Rev CEFAC. 2020;22(1):1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/202022115818
  6. Hermann R, Lescanne E, Loundon N, Barone P, Belmin J, Blanchet C, et al. French Society of ENT (SFORL) guidelines Indications for cochlear implantation in adults. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2019;136(3):193-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2019.04.006 PMid:31005457.
  7. Manrique M, Ramos Á, Vernetta CP, Gil-Carcedo E, Lassaletta L, Sanchez-Cuadrado I, et al. Guideline on cochlear implants. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2019;70(1):47-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2017.10.007 PMid:29598832.
  8. Carlson ML, Sladen DP, Gurgel RK, Tombers NM, Lohse CM, Driscoll CL. Survey of the American Neurotology Society on cochlear implantation Part 1, candidacy assessment and expanding indications. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(1):12-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001632 PMid:29210952.
  9. Bento RF, Bahmad F Jr, Hippolyto MA, Da Costa SS. Overcoming developing-world challenges in cochlear implantation: a South American perspective. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;26(3):200-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000453 PMid:29553961.
  10. Debruyne JA, Miranda JA, Brokx JPL. Systematic review on late cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults and adolescents: clinical effectiveness. Ear Hear. 2020;41(6):1417-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000884 PMid:33136619.
  11. Mcrackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, Frankp-Tobin E, Droghini R. Meta‐analysis of quality‐of‐life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):982-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.26738 PMid:28731538.
  12. Snel-Bongers J, Netten AP, Boermans PPBM, Rotteveel LJC, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM. Evidence-based inclusion criteria for cochlear implantation in patients with postlingual deafness. Ear Hear. 2018;39(5):1008-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000568 PMid:29642089.
  13. Forli F, Turchetti G, Giuntini G, Bellelli S, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, et al. Cochlear implant in prelingually deafened oralist adults: speech perception outcomes, subjective benefits and quality of life improvement. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017;37(5):416-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-1493 PMid:29165436.
  14. McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Association of demographic and hearing-related factors with cochlear implant–related quality of life. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(5):422-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0055 PMid:30896742.
  15. Kurz A, Grubenbecher M, Rak K, Hagen R, Kuhn H. The impact of etiology and duration of deafness on speech perception outcomes in SSD patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(12):3317-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05644-w PMid:31535291.
  16. Fleck MPA, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, Santos L, et al. Application of the Portuguese version of the abbreviated WHOQOL-bref quality of life assessment instrument. Rev Saude Publica. 2000;34(2):178-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102000000200012 PMid:10881154.
  17. Graaf R, Bijl RV. Determinants of mental distress in adults with a severe auditory impairment: differences between prelingual and postlingual deafness. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(1):61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200201000-00009 PMid:11818587.
  18. Imagawa N, Hirota E, Morino T, Kojima H. Factors related to the satisfaction level of elderly hearing-impaired individuals with cochlear implants. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2020;47(5):793-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2020.04.010 PMid:32534841.
  19. Bierbaum M, McMahon CM, Hughes S, Boisvert I, Lau AYS, Braithwaite J, et al. Barriers and facilitators to cochlear implant uptake in Australia and the United Kingdom. Ear Hear. 2020;41(2):374-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000762 PMid:31356385.
  20. Laske RD, Dreyfuss M, Stulman A, Veraguth D, Huber AM, Röösli C. Age dependent cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation in adults is there an age related cut-off? Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):892-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002275 PMid:31157721.
  21. Emmett SD, Sudoko CK, Tucci DL, Saunders JE, Akhtar N. Expanding access: cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation and deaf education in Asia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;161(4):672-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599819849917 PMid:31210566.
  22. Fang TY, Cheng LJ, Wu DB, Wang PC. Cost-effective analysis of unilateral cochlear implantation under the Taiwan national healthcare insurance. Ear Hear. 2020;59(1):39-44. PMid:31498005.
  23. Cheng LJ, Soon SS, Wu DB, Ju H, Ng K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220439 PMid:31415595.
  24. Zaltz Y, Bugannim Y, Zechoval D, Kishon-Rabin L, Perez R. Listening in noise remains a significant challenge for cochlear implant users: evidence from early deafened and those with progressive hearing loss compared to peers with normal hearing. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1381. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051381 PMid:32397101.
  25. Gransier R, Luke R, Van Wieringen A, Wouters J. Neural modulation transmission is a marker for speech perception in noise in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2019;41(3):591-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000783 PMid:31567565.
  26. Bugannim Y, Roth DA, Zechoval D, Kishon-rabin L. Training of speech perception in noise in pre-lingual hearing impaired adults with cochlear implants compared with normal hearing adults. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):e316-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002128 PMid:30741913.
  27. Saraç ET, Batuk MO, Sennaroglu G. Evaluation of the quality of life in adults with cochlear implants: as good as the healthy adults? Am J Otolaryngol. 2019;40(5):720-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2019.06.010 PMid:31280880.
  28. Nijmeijer HGB, Keijsers NM, Huinck WJ, Mylanus EAM. The effect of cochlear implantation on autonomy, participation and work in postlingually deafened adults: a scoping review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 PMid:33245451.
  29. Wick CC, Kallogjeri D, McJunkin JL, Durakovic N, Holden LK, Herzog JA, et al. Hearing and quality-of-life outcomes after cochlear implantation in adult hearing aid Users 65 years or OlderA secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(10):925-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2020.1585 PMid:32857114.
  30. Pattisapu P, Lindquist NR, Appelbaum EN, Silva RC, Vrabec JT, Sweeney AD. A systematic review of cochlear implant outcomes in prelingually-deafened, late-implanted patients. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(4):444-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002555 PMid:32176122.
     
64ff4a8fa9539536b177f904 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electronic)
CoDAS ©2024 All rights reserved.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections