Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders

Bernhard U Seeber²  Wanda Aleksy⁴  Shakeel Saeed⁴  Terry Nunn⁵  Dan Jiang⁵  Martin O’Driscoll⁶  Kevin Green⁶  Alison Riley³  Louise Craddock³  Ellen Jeffs¹  Andrew Marshall¹  Mark Edmondson-Jones⁷  Gerard M O’Donoghue¹  Pádraig T Kitterick⁷ 

[1] Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen’s Medical Centre, NG7 2UH Nottingham, UK;MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University Park, NG7 2RD Nottingham, UK;Midlands Hearing Implant Programme, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Audiology Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham, B15 2TH Birmingham, UK;The Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, 330 Gray’s Inn Road, WC1X 8DA London, UK;Department of Audiology, St Thomas’ Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, SE1 7EH London, UK;University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, M13 9PL Manchester, UK;Otology and Hearing group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, NG7 2UH Nottingham, UK

关键词: Spatial listening;    Binaural hearing;    Hearing aid;    Contra-lateral routing of signals;    Unilateral hearing loss;    Single-sided deafness;    Cochlear implantation;   

Others  :  1084634
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6815-14-7

 received in 2014-02-18, accepted in 2014-07-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds.

Methods/Design

The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life.

Discussion

This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 webcite (05/JUL/2013)

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kitterick et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Baguley DM, Bird J, Humphriss RL, Prevost AT: The evidence base for the application of contralateral bone anchored hearing aids in acquired unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in adults. Clin Otolaryngol 2006, 31:6-14.
• [2]Douglas SA, Yeung P, Daudia A, Gatehouse S, O’Donoghue GM: Spatial hearing disability after acoustic neuroma removal. Laryngoscope 2007, 117:1648-1651.
• [3]Giolas TG, Wark DJ: Communication problems associated with unilateral hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 1967, 32(4):336-343.
• [4]McLeod B, Upfold L, Taylor A: Self reported hearing difficulties following excision of vestibular schwannoma. Int J Audiol 2008, 47:420-430.
• [5]Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Beck R, Schild C, Kroeger S, Ihorst G, Wesarg T: Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2011, 32:39-47.
• [6]Hol MKS, Bosman AJ, Snik AFM, Mylanus EAM, Cremers CWRJ: Bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral inner ear deafness: A study of 20 patients. Audiol Neuro Otol 2004, 9:274-281.
• [7]Niparko JK, Cox KM, Lustig LR: Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol 2003, 24(1):73-78.
• [8]Wazen JJ, Ghossaini SN, Spitzer JB, Kuller M: Localization by unilateral BAHA users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005, 132(6):928-932.
• [9]Harford E, Barry J: A rehabilitative approach to the problem of unilateral hearing impairment: The contralateral routing of signals (CROS). J Speech Hear Disord 1965, 30:121-138.
• [10]Bosman AJ, Hol MKS, Snik AFM, Mylanus EAM, Cremers CWRJ: Bone-anchored hearing aids in unilateral inner ear deafness. Acta Oto-laryngologica 2003, 123(2):258-260.
• [11]Hol MKS, Kunst SJW, Snik AFM, Cremers CWRJ: Pilot study on the effectiveness of the conventional CROS, the transcranial CROS and the BAHD transcranial CROS in adults with unilateral inner ear deafness. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010, 267(6):889-896.
• [12]Lin LM, Bowditch S, Anderson MJ, May B, Cox KM, Niparko JK: Amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness: speech in noise and directional hearing effects with bone-anchored hearing and contralateral routing of signal amplification. Otol Neurotol 2006, 27(2):172-182.
• [13]Wazen JJ, Spitzer JB, Ghossaini SN, Fayad JN, Niparko JK, Cox K, Brackmann DE, Soli SD: Transcranial contralateral cochlear stimulation in unilateral deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003, 129:248-254.
• [14]Gelfand SA: Usage of CROS hearing aids by unilaterally deaf patients. Arch Otolaryngol 1979, 105(6):328-332.
• [15]Bishop CE, Eby TL: The current status of audiologic rehabilitation for profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2010, 120(3):552-556.
• [16]NHS Commissioning Board: Clinical Commissioning Policy - Bone Anchored Hearing Aids. 2013. NHS Commissioning Board [http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/d09-p-a.pdf webcite]
• [17]Zawawi F, Kabbach G, Lallemand M, Daniel SJ: Bone-anchored hearing aid: Why do some patients refuse it? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013, 78(2):232-234.
• [18]Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Waltzman SB, Arndt S: Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study. Otol Neurotol 2012, 33(8):1339-1346.
• [19]Vermeire K, Van de Heyning P: Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects -with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neuro Otol 2009, 14:163-171.
• [20]Gatehouse S, Noble W: The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004, 43(2):85-99.
• [21]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Technology Appraisal Guidance 166: Cochlear Implants for Children and Adults with Severe to Profound Deafness. 2009,. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. [http://www.nice.org.uk/TA166 webcite]
• [22]Tyler RS, Parkinson AJ, Woodworth GG, Lowder MW, Gantz BJ: Performance over time of adult patients using the ineraid or nucleus cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1997, 102(1):508-522.
• [23]Ruffin CV, Tyler RS, Witt SA, Dunn CC, Gantz BJ, Rubinstein JT: Long-term performance of clarion 1.0 cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 2007, 117(7):1183-1190.
• [24]Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Chapter 16: special topics in statistics. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) Edited by The Cochrane Collaboration, Green S, Higgins JPT, Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org webcite.
• [25]British Society of Audiology and British Academy of Audiology: Guidance on the use of real ear measurement to verify the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids . British Society of Audiology and British Academy of Audiology; 2007. [http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/REM.pdf webcite]
• [26]Pumford J: Benefits of probe-mic measures with CROS/BiCROS fittings. Hear J 2005, 50(10):34-40.
• [27]Lantz J, Jensen OD, Haastrup A, Olsen SO: Real-ear measurement verification for open, non-occluding hearing instruments. Int J Audiol 2007, 46:11-16.
• [28]Seeber BU, Kerber S, Hafter ER: A system to simulate and reproduce audio-visual environments for spatial hearing research. Hear Res 2010, 260(1–2):1-10.
• [29]Kerber S, Seeber BU: Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2012, 33(4):445-457.
• [30]Kerber S, Seeber BU: Localization in reverberation with cochlear implants: predicting performance from basic psychophysical measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2013, 14(3):379-392.
• [31]Seeber BU: A new method for localization studies. Acta Acustica United Acustica 2002, 88(3):446-450.
• [32]Boothroyd A: Developments in speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 1968, 2(1):3-10.
• [33]Ricketts T, Grantham DW, D’Haese P, Edwards J, Barco A: Cochlear implant speech processor placement and compression effects on sound sensitivity and interaural level difference. J Am Acad Audiol 2006, 17(2):133-140.
• [34]Wiggins IM, Seeber BU: Dynamic-range compression affects the lateral position of sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 2011, 130(6):3939-3953.
• [35]Seeber BU, Fastl H: Localization cues with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 123(2):1030-1042.
• [36]Rothauser EH, Chapman ND, Guttman N, Nordby KS, Silbiger HR, Urbanek GE, Weinstock M: Ieee recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 1969, 17(3):225-246.
• [37]Plomp P, Mimpen AM: Improving the reliability of testing the speech perception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979, 18:43-52.
• [38]MacKeith NW, Coles RRA: Binaural advantages in hearing of speech. J Laryngol Otol 1971, 85(3):213-232.
• [39]Gatehouse S, Noble W: The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004, 43:85-99.
• [40]Noble W, Gatehouse S: Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2006, 45(3):172-181.
• [41]Noble W, Tyler R, Dunn C, Bhullar N: Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: comparing self-assessed and measured abilities. Int J Audiol 2008, 47(8):505-514.
• [42]Singh G, Pichora-Fuller KM: Older adults’ performance on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ): Test-retest reliability and a comparison of interview and self-administration methods. Int J Audiol 2010, 49(10):733-740.
• [43]Gatehouse S: Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing-aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 1999, 10:80-103.
• [44]Gatehouse S: A self-report outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing-aid fittings and services. Health Bull 1999, 57:424-436.
• [45]Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG: Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996, 105:415-422.
• [46]Summerfield AQ, Barton GR, Toner J, McAnallen C, Proops D, Harries C, Cooper H, Court I, Gray R, Osborne J, Doran M, Ramsden R, Mawman D, O’Driscoll M, Graham J, Aleksy W, Meerton L, Verschure C, Ashcroft P, Pringle M: Self-reported benefits from successive bilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults: randomised controlled trial. Int J Audiol 2006, 45(1):99-107.
• [47]Meikle MB, Henry JA, Griest SE, Stewart BJ, Abrams HB, McArdle R, Myers PJ, Newman CW, Sandridge S, Turk DC, Folmer RL, Frederick EJ, House JW, Jacobson GP, Kinney SE, Martin WH, Nagler SM, Reich GE, Searchfield G, Sweetow R, Vernon JA: The tinnitus functional index: development of a new clinical measure for chronic intrusive tinnitus. Ear Hear 2012, 33(2):153-176.
• [48]Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW: Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995, 7(6):490-502.
• [49]Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Goldsmith C, DePauw S, Boyle M, Denton M, Zhu Z: Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. In Working Paper Series 98-11 . Ontario, Canada: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University; 1998.
• [50]Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M: Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002, 40(2):113-128.
• [51]Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 2004, 3(2):103-105.
• [52]Grutters JP, Joore MA, van der Horst F, Verschuure H, Dreschler WA, Anteunis LJ: Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(8):1439-1449.
• [53]UK Cochlear Implant Study Group: Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear 2004, 25(4):310-335.
• [54]Brooks R: Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
• [55]EuroQol Group: Euroqol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16(3):199-208.
• [56]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
• [57]Barton GR, Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Bloor KE: Choice of instrument for measuring the gain in utility from cochlear implantation. In Proceedings of the UK Health Economics Study Group Meeting, January 2001, Oxford . Oxford, UK: Health Economics Study Group; 2001.
• [58]National Institute for HealthandCareExcellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2013,. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. [http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9 webcite]