Re-evaluating candidates for cochlear implantation: traditional cochlear implantation vs. hybrid
Links to Fileshttp://library.towson.edu/cdm/ref/collection/etd/id/48599
MetadataShow full item record
Type of Workapplication/pdf
xi, 82 pages
DepartmentTowson University. Department of Audiology, Speech-Language Pathology and Deaf Studies
Cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria have expanded due to the advancements in technology (e.g., Hybrid CI), speech coding strategies, and surgical techniques. Now, people with some residual hearing that do not benefit from their best-fit hearing aids can be considered for CI candidacy. Research has shown that improved speech recognition and quality of life can be achieved post implantation for both traditional CI candidates and Hybrid CI recipients (Fitzpatrick & Leblanc, 2010; Hallberg & Ringdahl, 2004; Yeagle, Ceh, & Francis, 2010; Roland et al., 2016). This study identified patients at the Towson University-Hearing and Balance Center (TU-HBC) that are CI candidates by evaluating their charts using both the traditional and newly expanded CI candidacy criteria. This was achieved through a retrospective chart review. A survey was mailed to TU-HBC patients that were identified as CI candidates. The survey asked questions about their satisfaction with their hearing aid(s) as well as interest in learning more about CIs. The findings from this study found that just over 6% of the TU-HBC patients were CI candidates audiometrically. Of the potential candidates identified (n=156), there were 10 people that returned a completed survey. Their results indicated that they currently perceive minimal benefit from their hearing aids and are interested in learning more about CIs. Interested patients were invited to attend a CI information session at the TU-HBC as the first step informing them about cochlear implants.