Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Laryngorhinootologie 2019; 98(S 01): S82-S128
DOI: 10.1055/a-0755-2811
Referat
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019

Hörimplantate im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Heidi Olze
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Florian Cornelius Uecker
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Sophia Marie Häußler
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Steffen Knopke
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Agnieszka J. Szczepek
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Stefan Gräbel
1   Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde CVK, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde CCM, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 April 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre haben gezeigt, dass die Rehabilitation mit Hörimplantaten in der HNO-Heilkunde ein Bereich mit höchstem Entwicklungs- und Innovationspotenzial ist. Neue, bzw. erweiterte Indikationen gingen dabei einher mit Entwicklungen im Bereich der Implantate, neuen OP-Techniken und entsprechend angepassten Rehabilitationsstrategien.

Die wachsende Anzahl von Menschen mit Hörstörungen, die erweiterten Indikationen und die daraus resultierende steigende Anzahl CI-Versorgter, sowie die Notwendigkeit der lebenslangen CI Nachsorge sind vor dem Hintergrund begrenzter Ressourcen eine große Herausforderung. Um diese zu bewältigen und zu gestalten, bedarf es neben einer engen interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit und kontinuierlichen Weiterentwicklung der Therapie auch ganz neuer Strategien. Hier kommt der Digitalisierung all dieser Prozesse eine Schlüsselrolle zu.

In diesem Referat werden die aktuellen Entwicklungen aus dem Blickwinkel einer Cochlea-Implantat (CI) versorgenden Klinik dargestellt und besprochen. Das Referat illustriert vielfältige digitale Anwendungen, die in allen Phasen der CI Versorgung zum Einsatz kommen können, angefangen von der Patienteninformation über Möglichkeiten des Hör-Screenings und die präoperative Evaluation bis zur lebenslangen Nachsorge und der klinischen Forschung.

Hierbei liegt der Fokus auf speziellen Applikationen, die in der Entwicklung des digitalen Fortschritts und digitaler Strukturen im Rahmen der CI Versorgung eine besondere Rolle spielen und für das Verständnis der weiteren Entwicklung wichtig sind.

Möglichkeiten einer vereinfachten Anpassung ergeben sich z. B. durch eine automatische MAP-Erstellung (Artificial Intelligence Anwendungen), Remote Care Netzwerke (Telemedizin, Apps) fördern die aktive Selbstbeteiligung der Patienten und erlauben völlig neue Formen einer ortsungebundenen Patientenversorgung (automatisierte technische Implantatkontrolle, Selbstprogrammierung, Upgrades). Zentrale Datenbanken können die aktuelle MAP z. B. im Reparaturfall speichern, technische Daten und die Hörleistung dokumentieren. Einige der skizzierten Anwendungen sind heute schon Realität, andere erst in der Entwicklung.

Das Verständnis über die Möglichkeiten der Digitalisierung und deren Einsatz im Bereich der Hörrehabilitation mit Hörimplantaten und die Erkenntnis über das enorme Potenzial für effektive, zeiteffiziente Strukturen sind unabdingbar, um dieses Potenzial zu nutzen. Für uns HNO-Ärzte als wichtige Akteure im Gesundheitssystem bedeutet das, dass wir neben einer hohen fachlichen Expertise auch hohen Anforderungen an unsere Qualifikation in Bezug auf die digitalen Anwendungen gerecht werden müssen, um diesen Prozess aktiv mitzugestalten.

Schlüsselwörter:

Cochlea Implantat - Remote Care - Telemedizin - App - BigData - Artificial Intelligence
 

  • Literature

  • 1 WHO. Deafness and hearing loss. In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 2 Lin FR, Metter EJ, O’Brien RJ. et al. Hearing Loss and Incident Dementia. Archives of Neurology 2011; 68: 214-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lin FR, Ferrucci L, An Y. et al. Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults. NeuroImage 2014; 90
    PubMed
  • 4 Lin FR. Hearing loss and cognition among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2011; 66: 1131-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Knopke S, Gräbel S, Förster-Ruhrmann U et al. Impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life and mental comorbidity in patients aged 80 years. Laryngoscope 2016; 126
    PubMed
  • 6 Olze H, Gräbel S, Förster U. et al. Elderly patients benefit from cochlear implantation regarding auditory rehabilitation, quality of life, tinnitus, and stress. The Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 196-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Olze H, Knopke S, Gräbel S et al. Rapid Positive Influence of Cochlear Implantation on the Quality of Life in Adults 70 Years and Older. Audiology and Neurotology 2016; 21
    PubMed
  • 8 Olze H, Gräbel S, Haupt H. et al. Extra benefit of a second cochlear implant with respect to health-related quality of life and tinnitus. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological. Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 2012; 33: 1169-1175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Knopke S, Szczepek AJ, Haussler SM. et al. Cochlear Implantation of Bilaterally Deafened Patients with Tinnitus Induces Sustained Decrease of Tinnitus-Related Distress. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hirschfelder A, Gräbel S, Olze H. The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life: the role of audiologic performance and variables. Otolaryngology – head and neck surgery: official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2008; 138: 357-362
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Olze H, Szczepek AJ, Haupt H. et al. Cochlear implantation has a positive influence on quality of life, tinnitus, and psychological comorbidity. The Laryngoscope 2011; 121: 2220-2227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Olze H, Szczepek AJ, Haupt H. et al. The impact of cochlear implantation on tinnitus, stress and quality of life in postlingually deafened patients. Audiol Neurootol 2012; 17: 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 DGHNO Pd. Weißbuch Cochlea-Implantat(CI)-Versorgung.
    PubMed
  • 14 Blamey PJ, Maat B, Başkent D. et al. A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation. Ear Hearing 2015; 36: 408-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lenarz T. Cochlear Implant – State of the Art. Laryngorhinootologie 2017; 96: S123-S151
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Knopke S, Szczepek AJ, Häussler SM. et al. Cochlear Implantation of Bilaterally Deafened Patients with Tinnitus Induces Sustained Decrease of Tinnitus-Related Distress. Frontiers in Neurology 2017; 8: 158-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Disorders NIoDaOC. Cochlear Implants. In; 2017
    PubMed
  • 18 Bundesamt S. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. 2015, DOI: 1–69
    PubMed
  • 19 Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde K-uH-CeV, Bonn. Cochlea-Implantat Versorgung und zentral-auditorische Implantate. In; 2012
    PubMed
  • 20 Knopke S, Olze H. Hörrehabilitation mithilfe von Cochleaimplantaten und kognitive Fähigkeiten. HNO 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s00106-017-0423-z.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M. Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000.
    PubMed
  • 22 Sohn W, Jorgenshaus W. Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Erkrankungen-Schwerhorigkeit in Deutschland-Reprasentative Horscreening-Untersuchung bei 2000 Probanden in 11 Allgemeinpraxen. ZFA-Zeitschrift fur Allgemeinmedizin-Ausgabe A 2001; 77: 143-147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Teschner M, Polite C, Lenarz T. et al. Cochlear implantation in different health-care systems: disparities between Germany and the United States. Otology & Neurotology 2013; 34: 66-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T. Audiometry-based screening procedure for cochlear implant candidacy. Otology & Neurotology 2015; 36: 1001-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world's largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear implants international 2013; 14: S12-S14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bionics A. http://www.AdvancedBionics.de In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 27 Cochlear www.cochlear.de In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 28 Medel www.medel.com In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 29 Oticon www.oticonmedical.com In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 30 Aiello CP, Ferrari DV. Teleaudiology: efficacy assessment of an online social network as a support tool for parents of children candidates for cochlear implant. In, CoDAS: SciELO Brasil 2015; 411-418
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Institute I http://https://idainstitute.com/ In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 32 Paglialonga A, Nielsen AC, Ingo E. et al. eHealth and the hearing aid adult patient journey: a state-of-the-art review. Biomedical engineering online 2018; 17: 101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Uecker FC, Szczepek AJ, Olze H. Paediatric bilateral cochlear implantation: simultaneous versus sequential surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2018; in press
    PubMed
  • 34 Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryng Head Neck 2000; 123: 756-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Holube I, Kollmeier B. ModifIkation eines Fragebogens zur Erlassung des subjektiven Hör-verDlögens und dessen Beziehung zur Sprachverständlichkeit in Ruhe und unter Störgeräuschen. 1994
    PubMed
  • 36 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005; 53: 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Smits C, Theo Goverts S, Festen JM. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013; 133: 1693-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hoppe U, Hocke T, Hast A. et al. Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 2017; 96: 234-238
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bright T, Pallawela D. Validated smartphone-based apps for ear and hearing assessments: a review. JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies 2016; 3
    PubMed
  • 40 Nast DR, Speer WS, Le Prell CG. Sound level measurements using smartphone “apps”: Useful or inaccurate?. Noise and Health 2014; 16: 251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bruggemann P, Szczepek AJ, Klee K. et al. In Patients Undergoing Cochlear Implantation, Psychological Burden Affects Tinnitus and the Overall Outcome of Auditory Rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci 2017; 11: 226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF. Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngology – head and neck surgery: official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2000; 123: 756-765
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Sweetow RW. Screening for cognitive disorders in older adults in the audiology clinic. Audiology Today 2015; 27: 38-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Morris MA, Saboury B, Burkett B. et al. Reinventing radiology: big data and the future of medical imaging. Journal of thoracic imaging 2018; 33: 4-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Brink JA, Arenson RL, Grist TM. et al. Bits and bytes: the future of radiology lies in informatics and information technology. European radiology 2017; 27: 3647-3651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Radiology ESo. Summary of the proceedings of the international forum 2016:“Imaging referral guidelines and clinical decision support – how can radiologists implement imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine?”. Insights into imaging 2017; 8: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kansagra AP, John-Paul JY, Chatterjee AR. et al. Big data and the future of radiology informatics. Academic radiology 2016; 23: 30-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gerber N, Bell B, Gavaghan K. et al. Surgical planning tool for robotically assisted hearing aid implantation. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 2014; 9: 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Lu P, Barazzetti L, Chandran V et al. Facial nerve image enhancement from CBCT using supervised learning technique. In, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE: IEEE; 2015: 2964–2967
    PubMed
  • 50 Mellor JC, Stone MA, Keane J. Application of data mining to “big data” acquired in audiology: Principles and potential. Trends in hearing 2018; 22: 2331216518776817
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Cox S, Oakes M, Wermter S. et al. AudioMine: Medical Data Mining in Heterogeneous Audiology Records. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control and Information Engineering 2007; 1: 141-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Czaplik M, Voigt V, Kenngott H. et al. Why OR. NET? Requirements and perspectives from a medical user’s, clinical operator’s and device manufacturer’s points of view. Biomedical Engineering/Biomedizinische Technik 2018; 63: 5-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Kasparick M, Schmitz M, Andersen B. et al. OR. NET: a service-oriented architecture for safe and dynamic medical device interoperability. Biomedical Engineering/Biomedizinische Technik 2018; 63: 11-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Benzko J, Krause L, Janß A. et al. Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces. Biomedical Engineering/Biomedizinische Technik 2016; 61: 183-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Klenzner T, Ngan CC, Knapp FB. et al. New strategies for high precision surgery of the temporal bone using a robotic approach for cochlear implantation. European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology 2009; 266: 955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Caversaccio M, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W. et al. Robotic cochlear implantation: surgical procedure and first clinical experience. Acta Oto-Laryngol 2017; 137: 447-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Cosetti MK, Troob SH, Latzman JM. et al. An evidence-based algorithm for intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implantation. Otology & Neurotology 2012; 33: 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Viccaro M, Covelli E, De Seta E. et al. The importance of intra-operative imaging during cochlear implant surgery. Cochlear implants international 2009; 10: 198-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Vogl T, Tawfik A, Emam A. et al. Pre-, intra-and post-operative imaging of cochlear implants. In, RöFo-Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2015; 980-989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Carelsen B, Grolman W, Tange R. et al. Cochlear implant electrode array insertion monitoring with intra-operative 3D rotational X-ray. Clinical Otolaryngology 2007; 32: 46-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Aschendorff A. Imaging in cochlear implant patients. GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery 2011; 10
    PubMed
  • 62 Bloom JD, Rizzi MD, Germiller JA. Real-time intraoperative computed tomography to assist cochlear implant placement in the malformed inner ear. Otology & Neurotology 2009; 30: 23-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Yuan Y-Y, Song Y-S, Chai C-M. et al. Intraoperative CT-guided cochlear implantation in congenital ear deformity. Acta Oto-Laryngol 2012; 132: 951-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Stelter K, Ledderose G, Hempel JM. et al. Image guided navigation by intraoperative CT scan for cochlear implantation. Computer Aided Surgery 2012; 17: 153-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Shapiro WH, Huang T, Shaw T. et al. Remote intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implant surgery is feasible and efficient. Otology & Neurotology 2008; 29: 495-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Yanov Y, Kuzovkov V, Sugarova S et al. Successful application and timing of a remote network for intraoperative objective measurements during cochlear implantation surgery. International journal of audiology 2018 DOI: 1–7
    PubMed
  • 67 Botros A, van Dijk B, Killian M. AutoNRT™: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus® Freedom™ cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 2007; 40: 15-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 van Dijk B, Botros AM, Battmer R-D. et al. Clinical results of AutoNRT,™ a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hearing 2007; 28: 558-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Tavartkiladze G, Bakhshinyan V, Irwin C. Evaluation of new technology for intraoperative evoked compound action potential threshold measurements. International journal of audiology 2015; 54: 347-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Grolman W, Maat A, Verdam F. et al. Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational x-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements. Otology & Neurotology 2009; 30: 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Lassaletta L, Polak M, Huesers J. et al. Usefulness of Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses to Assess the Functionality of the Cochlear Nerve Using an Intracochlear Test Electrode. Otology & Neurotology 2017; 38: e413-e420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 „vom“, DOI, 2018, 34
    PubMed
  • 73 Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JE. Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol 2002; 7: 335-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Battmer R-D, Borel S, Brendel M. et al. Assessment of ‘Fitting to Outcomes Expert’ FOX ™ with new cochlear implant users in a multi-centre study. Cochlear Implants International 2015; 16: 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Meeuws M, Pascoal D, Bermejo I. et al. Computer-assisted CI fitting: Is the learning capacity of the intelligent agent FOX beneficial for speech understanding?. Cochlear Implants Int 2017; 18: 198-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ, de Ceulaer G. et al. Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Botros A, Banna R, Maruthurkkara S. The next generation of Nucleus (R) fitting: a multiplatform approach towards universal cochlear implant management. Int J Audiol 2013; 52: 485-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Lenarz T. Cochlear implant – state of the art. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 16: Doc04
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Eikelboom RH, Jayakody DMP, Swanepoel DW. et al. Validation of remote mapping of cochlear implants. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20: 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Kuzovkov V, Yanov Y, Levin S. et al. Remote programming of MED-EL cochlear implants: users' and professionals' evaluation of the remote programming experience. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 2014; 134: 709-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Wasowski A, Skarzynski PH, Lorens A. et al. Remote fitting of cochlear implant system. Cochlear implants international 2010; 11 (Suppl. 01) 489-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Frago LM, Canon S, de la Rosa EJ. et al. Programmed cell death in the developing inner ear is balanced by nerve growth factor and insulin-like growth factor I. J Cell Sci 2003; 116: 475-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Bright T, Pallawela D. Validated Smartphone-Based Apps for Ear and Hearing Assessments: A Review. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies 2016; 3: e13-e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Bionics A. Die neue bimodale Naída Hörlösung.
    PubMed
  • 85 Bionics A. Die Naída Link CROS Lösung.
    PubMed
  • 86 Cullington H, Kitterick P, Weal M. et al. Feasibility of personalised remote long-term follow-up of people with cochlear implants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ open 2018; 8: e019640
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Infrastruktur BfVud. http://https://www.bmvi.de/DE/Themen/Digitales/Breitbandausbau/Breitbandatlas-Karte/start.html In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 88 FAZ. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/diginomics/so-weit-istdeutschland-mit-dem-breitbandausbau-15672719.html In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 89 Saunders GH, Chisolm TH. Connected audiological rehabilitation: 21st century innovations. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26: 768-776
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Bush ML, Thompson R, Irungu C. et al. The role of telemedicine in auditory rehabilitation: a systematic review. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 2016; 37: 1466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Pichora-Fuller MK, Levitt H. Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. American Journal of Audiology 2012; 21: 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Krüger-Brand HE. Mobile Medizintechnik: Telemedizin für die Nachsorge. Dtsch Arztebl International 2013; 110: 2014-2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Cullington HE, Agyemang-Prempeh A. Person-centred cochlear implant care: Assessing the need for clinic intervention in adults with cochlear implants using a dual approach of an online speech recognition test and a questionnaire. Cochlear implants international 2017; 18: 76-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Zenner H, Delb W, Kröner-Herwig B. et al. On the interdisciplinary S3 guidelines for the treatment of chronic idiopathic tinnitus. Hno 2015; 63: 419-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Folmer RL, Griest SE, Meikle MB. et al. Tinnitus severity, loudness, and depression. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 1999; 121: 48-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Kreuzer PM, Vielsmeier V, Langguth B. Chronic tinnitus: an interdisciplinary challenge. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2013; 110: 278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Mazurek B, Szczepek AJ, Bruggemann P. Tinnitus – Clinical Symptoms and Therapy. Laryngorhinootologie 2017; 96: 47-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Henry JA, Dennis KC, Schechter MA. General review of tinnitus: prevalence, mechanisms, effects, and management. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research 2005; 48: 1204-1235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Baguley DM, Atlas MD. Cochlear implants and tinnitus. Progress in brain research 2007; 166: 347-355
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Kompis M, Pelizzone M, Dillier N. et al. Tinnitus before and 6 months after cochlear implantation. Audiology and Neurotology 2012; 17: 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Miyamoto RT, Bichey BG. Cochlear implantation for tinnitus suppression. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 2003; 36: 345-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Pan T, Tyler RS, Ji H. et al. Changes in the tinnitus handicap questionnaire after cochlear implantation. American journal of audiology 2009; 18: 144-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Quaranta N, Fernandez-Vega S, D'Elia C. et al. The effect of unilateral multichannel cochlear implant on bilaterally perceived tinnitus. Acta Oto-Laryngol 2008; 128: 159-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Quaranta N, Wagstaff S, Baguley DM. Tinnitus and cochlear implantation. International journal of audiology 2004; 43: 245-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Olze H. Cochlear implants and tinnitus. HNO 2015; 63: 291-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar