ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

Routine Audiometry Correlate Strongly With Formal CI Candidacy Evaluation

by Amy E. Hamaker • January 19, 2017

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

Can findings on routine audiometry predict the results of a formal cochlear implant candidacy evaluation?

Bottom line: Routine audiometric findings can be used to identify patients who are likely to meet CI candidacy upon formal testing.

You Might Also Like

  • Cortisporin Use in Routine Tympanoplasty
  • Limited Histopathology Adequate for Evaluating Routine Cholesteatoma Cases
  • Cidofovir Therapy Does Not Correlate with Worsening Dysplasia
  • Smoking History and ANCA Testing Correlate with Nonmechanical LTS
Explore This Issue
January 2017

Background: Although cochlear implantation benefits have been well described, it is clear that the technology is underutilized. One contributory factor is that there are no established criteria on routine office-based audiometry to assist audiologists, hearing instrument specialists, and otolaryngologists in their decisions on whether to refer patients for a formal CI evaluation.

Study design: Retrospective, observational, diagnostic study of the charts of 139 adult patients evaluated for implant candidacy at a tertiary care center from June 2008 through June 2013.

Setting: University of Wisconsin–Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health.

Synopsis: With regard to hearing loss pattern, 75 were downsloping, 56 were flat, and eight were considered other. Researchers found that 83.3% of patients with pure tones at or below 54.7 dB at 250 Hz would meet CI candidacy upon formal evaluation using AzBio sentences in quiet. Eighty-seven percent of patients who scored 30.2% or less correct in the monosyllabic word recognition test (MWRT) qualified for a CI according to Medicare criteria using Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences, 81.5% of patients who scored 35.6% or less correct in the MWRT qualified using AzBio sentences in quiet, and 93.3% of hearing loss patients who scored 39.2% or less correct in the MWRT qualified using AzBio sentences with background noise.

For downsloping pattern patients, 71.4% who scored 30% or less correct in the MWRT qualified when using HINT sentences; for flat pattern patients, 96.7% of patients who scored 33% or less correct in the MWRT qualified. Ultimately, 102 participants qualified for implantation. Limitations included a study population of adult patients who had already been referred for a CI evaluation and use of a recorded voice in presenting monosyllabic words (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score. Credit: Laryngoscope

(click for larger image)
Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score.
Credit: Laryngoscope

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Otology/Neurotology Tagged With: audiometry, CI, cochlear implants, diagnosisIssue: January 2017

You Might Also Like:

  • Cortisporin Use in Routine Tympanoplasty
  • Limited Histopathology Adequate for Evaluating Routine Cholesteatoma Cases
  • Cidofovir Therapy Does Not Correlate with Worsening Dysplasia
  • Smoking History and ANCA Testing Correlate with Nonmechanical LTS

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Experts Delve into Treatment Options for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Weaning Patients Off of PPIs
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Did You Receive COVID-19 Relief? Here Are Reporting Considerations for 2021
    • Otolaryngology Experts Share Best Practices in Five Areas
    • How Climate Change May Be Affecting Sleep Patterns for Adults and Children
    • Laryngologists Discuss Tough Tracheostomy Choices During COVID-19 Era
    • Head and Neck Cancer: Experts Discuss How to Improve Surgery Quality and Value

Polls

Did you receive funding from the CARES Act or Paycheck Protection Program?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2021 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.