Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791217
Research Article

Bilateral Cochlear Implants and Bimodal Hearing: A Comparison of Quality of Life

Jessica H. Lewis
1   Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Irina Castellanos
2   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Terrin N. Tamati
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Aaron C. Moberly
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) Career Development Award 5K23DC015539-02 to A.C.M. Research reported in this paper received IRB approval from The Ohio State University.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Despite significant advances in the field of cochlear implants (CIs), there is no widely accepted criterion for when to counsel on bilateral CIs in adults. This is partly due to conflicting findings on the advantages of bilateral CIs versus bimodal hearing (i.e., CI with a contralateral hearing aid). Because of this, clinicians rely on a poorly defined combination of clinical measures and patient discussion to evaluate a patient's listening needs and preferences. Patients' needs and preferences are often used to guide recommendations on whether bilateral CIs or bimodal hearing is best for that individual, suggesting that an in-depth comparison of each group's self-reported outcomes is warranted.

Purpose Given the limited number of studies directly comparing quality of life (QoL) in bimodal and bilateral patients, the current study conducted a preliminary comparison of self-reported outcomes to better understand patient-reported benefits of each listening configuration.

Research Design This was a between-subjects comparison.

Study Sample Fifteen bimodal and nine bilateral adult CI users made the study sample.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants completed the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) Profile 35. For group comparison purposes, monosyllabic word recognition and nonverbal intelligence were measured. Independent samples t-tests with Holm–Bonferroni corrections were used to compare bimodal and bilateral patients across domains of the CIQOL.

Results Bilateral CI users self-reported better environmental, emotional, social, and global QoL when compared to bimodal users. The groups did not differ on age, nonverbal intelligence, speech recognition abilities, and duration of hearing loss; however, bimodal users had less experience listening with their CI than the bilateral CI users.

Conclusion Bilateral CI users showed widespread advantages in QoL when compared to bimodal users. Bilateral CI users self-reported significantly better environmental QoL which conflicts with previous in-lab and self-report results suggesting a bimodal advantage. Additionally, due to a lack of current literature, it is unclear why a bilateral advantage is observed for emotional and social QoL. Results of the current study not only provide additional support on the benefits of bilateral implantation but also stress the need to further explore the self-reported benefits of each listening configuration.

Keywords

bimodal benefit - cochlear implants - quality of life - patient-reported outcome measures

Previous Presentation

Data from this article were presented at the 183rd meeting of The Acoustical Society of America, December 5-9, 2022, Nashville, TN.




Publication History

Received: 11 February 2023

Accepted: 12 January 2024

Article published online:
12 December 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Peters BR, Wyss J, Manrique M. Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2010; 120 (Suppl. 02) S17-S44
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Schafer EC, Amlani AM, Paiva D, Nozari L, Verret S. A meta-analysis to compare speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (12) 871-880
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gifford RH, Driscoll CLW, Davis TJ, Fiebig P, Micco A, Dorman MF. A within-subject comparison of bimodal hearing, bilateral cochlear implantation, and bilateral cochlear implantation with bilateral hearing preservation: high-performing patients. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (08) 1331-1337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Gifford RH, Dorman MF. Bimodal hearing or bilateral cochlear implants? ask the patient. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (03) 501-516
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Potts LG, Litovsky RY. Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (01) 79-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Dorman MF, Loiselle LH, Cook SJ, Yost WA, Gifford RH. Sound source localization by normal-hearing listeners, hearing-impaired listeners and cochlear implant listeners. Audiol Neurotol 2016; 21 (03) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Macaulay EJ, Hartmann WM, Rakerd B. The acoustical bright spot and mislocalization of tones by human listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127 (03) 1440-1449
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Zhang T, Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Saoji A. Relationship between auditory function of nonimplanted ears and bimodal benefit. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (02) 133-141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Devocht EMJ, Janssen AML, Chalupper J, Stokroos RJ, George ELJ. The benefits of bimodal aiding on extended dimensions of speech perception: intelligibility, listening effort, and sound quality. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517727900
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Neuman AC, Waltzman SB, Shapiro WH, Neukam JD, Zeman AM, Svirsky MA. Self-reported usage, functional benefit, and audiologic characteristics of cochlear implant patients who use a contralateral hearing aid. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517699530
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, Zeng FG. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (02) 173-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int 2009; 10 (Suppl. 01) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Crew JD, Galvin III JJ, Landsberger DM, Fu QJ. Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception. PLoS One 2015; 10 (03) e0120279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Nyirjesy S, Rodman C, Tamati TN, Moberly AC. Are there real-world benefits to bimodal listening?. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (09) e1111-e1117
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Theriou C, Fielden CA, Kitterick PT. The cost-effectiveness of bimodal stimulation compared to unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant use in adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (06) 1425-1436
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Zwolan TA, Basura G. Determining cochlear implant candidacy in adults: limitations, expansions, and opportunities for improvement. Semin Hear 2021; 42 (04) 331-341
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518755288
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Yawn RJ, O'Connell BP, Dwyer RT. et al. Bilateral cochlear implantation versus bimodal hearing in patients with functional residual hearing: a within-subjects comparison of audiologic performance and quality of life. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (04) 422-427
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL. et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (04) 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Farinetti A, Roman S, Mancini J. et al. Quality of life in bimodal hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (11) 3209-3215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 van Loon MC, Smits C, Smit CF, Hensen EF, Merkus P. Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss: benefits of bimodal stimulation. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (06) e100-e106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Bhenswala PN, Nguyen SA, Dubno JR. General health quality of life instruments underestimate the impact of bilateral cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (06) 745-753
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Luntz M, Egra-Dagan D, Attias J, Yehudai N, Most T, Shpak T. From hearing with a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid (CI/HA) to hearing with two cochlear implants (CI/CI): a within-subject design comparison. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (10) 1682-1690
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 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. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123 (06) 756-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 McRackan TR, Velozo CA, Holcomb MA. et al. Use of adult patient focus groups to develop the initial item bank for a Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life instrument. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 143 (10) 975-982
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Development of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Item Bank. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 1016-1024
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): development of a profile instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a global measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (09) 3554-3563
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 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 (05) 422-430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Nittrouer S, Burton LT. The role of early language experience in the development of speech perception and phonological processing abilities: evidence from 5-year-olds with histories of otitis media with effusion and low socioeconomic status. J Commun Disord 2005; 38 (01) 29-63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17 (03) 321-337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Mattingly JK, Castellanos I, Moberly AC. Nonverbal reasoning as a contributor to sentence recognition outcomes in adults with Cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (10) e956-e963
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Choi SJ, Lee JB, Bahng J. et al. Effect of low frequency on speech performance with bimodal hearing in bilateral severe hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (12) 2817-2822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fitzgerald M, Glassman K, Mehta S, Seward K, Neuman A. Listening effort in bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (04) 2390-2390
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Cusumano C, Friedmann DR, Fang Y, Wang B, Roland Jr JT, Waltzman SB. Performance plateau in prelingually and postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (03) 334-338
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Chidarala S, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Consortium. Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global scores for experienced cochlear implant users from a multi-institutional study. Otol Neurotol 2022; 43 (07) 797-802
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar