SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 5

Evaluation of hearing performance in cochlear implant patients

Koklear implantasyonlu hastalarda işitme performanslarının karşılaştırılması

Emre Yücel(İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi KBB Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı)
Meryem Nesil Keleş Türel(İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi KBB Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı)
Mehmet Ali Solmaz(İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi KBB Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı)
Kemal Değer(İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi KBB Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı)
Ayşen Erdil(VKV Amerikan Hastanesi, Odyoloji Bölümü, İstanbul.)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2002-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The patients’ performance was assessed with respect to single- or multichannel implant design, duration of hearing loss, and etiologic factors of hearing loss.Results: The overall mean success score was 74.6 range 49-100 .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To determine the speech perception levels of cochlear implant patients and to evaluate the possible effects of implant type, duration of deafness, and bacterial meningitis on the patients’ hear­ ing performance.Patients and Methods: A three-section test battery on speech perception was administered to 21 cochlear implant patients 12 males, 9 females; mean age 25 years; range 9 to 40 years .
📊
Key Findings & Data:The patients’ performance was assessed with respect to single- or multichannel implant design, duration of hearing loss, and etiologic factors of hearing loss.Results: The overall mean success score was 74.6 range 49-100 .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Patients with meningitis-associated hearing loss exhibited a significantly lower performance than those presenting with other etiologic factors 61.9 ver­ sus 84.1, p=0.001 .Conclusion: Early diagnosis and rehabilitation are essential to achieve better performance following cochlear implantation.
🔬Design:Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cochlear diseases/surgery · cochlear implants · deafness/rehabilitation

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the speech perception levels of cochlear implant patients and to evaluate the possible effects of implant type, duration of deafness, and bacterial meningitis on the patients’ hear­ ing performance.Patients and Methods: A three-section test battery on speech perception was administered to 21 cochlear implant patients 12 males, 9 females; mean age 25 years; range 9 to 40 years . The patients’ performance was assessed with respect to single- or multichannel implant design, duration of hearing loss, and etiologic factors of hearing loss.Results: The overall mean success score was 74.6 range 49-100 . No significant difference was found between patients using single- or multi-channel implants. The mean score of 12 patients whose dura­ tion of hearing loss was below the average 8.2 years was significantly higher than those of nine patients with a longer history of hearing loss 85.7 versus 59.6, p=0.001 . Patients with meningitis-associated hearing loss exhibited a significantly lower performance than those presenting with other etiologic factors 61.9 ver­ sus 84.1, p=0.001 .Conclusion: Early diagnosis and rehabilitation are essential to achieve better performance following cochlear implantation.

Özet

Amaç: Koklear implant uygulanan hastalarda konuflmayı algılama düzeylerini belirlemek ve iflitmekaybı süresi, implant tipi ve bakteriyel menenjitinhastanın iflitme performansı üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmek.Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Koklear implantasyon uygulanan 21 hastaya üç bölümlük iflitsel anlama testi uygulandı. Hastaların testte gösterdikleri bafları, tek- veya çok-kanallı implant kullanımı, iflitme kaybı süresi,iflitme kaybının etyolojik nedenleri açısından değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Ortalama bafları puanı 74.6 dağılım 49100 düzeyinde bulundu. Tek-kanallı ve çok-kanallıimplant kullanan olgular arasında performans açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık görülmedi.İflitme kaybı süresi, ortalama sürenin 8.2 yıl altındaolan 12 olguda performans testindeki bafları ortalaması 85.7; üzerindeki dokuz olguda ise 59.6 bulundu p=0.001 . Postmenenjitik iflitme kaybı olan dokuz olgunun testteki baflarısı 61.9 diğer etyolojileresahip olguların 84.1 baflarısından anlamlı derecede düflüktü p= 0.001 .Sonuç: Koklear implantlı hastalarda daha iyi iflitmeperformansı için iflitme kaybının erken tanısı ve olguların rehabilitasyonu önem taflımaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

Yücel, E., Türel, M. N. K., Solmaz, M. A., Değer, K., Erdil, A. (2002). Evaluation of hearing performance in cochlear implant patients. The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat, Volume: 9 Issue: 5. https://ajindex.com/articles/1330223

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ito J, Takagi A, Kawano M, Takahashi H, Honjo I. Results with the currently used cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:298-300.
  2. Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Tye-Murray N, Fryauf-Bertschy H. Long-term results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenitally deaf children. In: Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES, editors. Advances in cochlear implants. Wien: Manz; 1994. p. 528-33.
  3. Hochmair-Desoyer IJ. Results from better postlingual adult users of the MED-EL devices. In: Hochmair- Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES, editors. Advances in cochlear implants. Wien: Manz; 1994. p. 363-9.
  4. Bredberg G, Lindstrom B. Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication perfor- mance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel- implanted patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:256-8.
  5. Nadol JB Jr. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117:220-8.
  6. Erdil AA, Hoflgör R. Cochlear implant iflitme rehabili- tasyon programı. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınevi; 1995.
  7. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Fisher SG. An experimental comparison of cochlear implant systems. Semin Hearing 1992;13:195-207.
  8. Slattery WH 3rd, Luxford WM. Cochlear implantation in the congenital malformed cochlea. Laryngoscope 1995; 105:1184-7.
  9. Nadol JB Jr, Young YS, Glynn RJ. Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:411-6.
  10. Moore JK, Niparko JK, Miller MR, Linthicum FH. Effect of profound hearing loss on a central auditory nucleus. Am J Otol 1994;15:588-95.
  11. M o o re JK, Niparko JK, Perazzo LM, Miller MR, Linthicum FH. Effect of adult-onset deafness on the human central auditory system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106:385-90.
  12. Kemink JL, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kileny PR, Firszt JB, Novak MA. Auditory performance of children with cochlear ossification and partial implant insertion. Laryngoscope 1992;102:1001-5.
  13. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ. Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants. In: Fraysee B, Deguine O, editors. Cochlear implants: new perspectives. Basel: Karger; 1993. p. 4 9 - 5 8.
  14. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ. Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants. In: Fraysee B, Deguine O, editors. Cochlear implants: new perspectives. Basel: Karger; 1993. p. 4 9 - 5 8.