Cargando…

Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process

OBJECTIVES: Determine the proportion of patients starting the cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) process proceeding to cochlear implantation. Determine which patient factors are associated with undergoing cochlear implantation. METHODS: Retrospective case series of all patients scheduled for a CIE wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Redmann, Andrew J., Tawfik, Kareem, Hammer, Theresa, Wenstrup, Lisa, Stevens, Shawn, Breen, Joseph T., Samy, Ravi N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33869764
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546
_version_ 1783676803448045568
author Redmann, Andrew J.
Tawfik, Kareem
Hammer, Theresa
Wenstrup, Lisa
Stevens, Shawn
Breen, Joseph T.
Samy, Ravi N.
author_facet Redmann, Andrew J.
Tawfik, Kareem
Hammer, Theresa
Wenstrup, Lisa
Stevens, Shawn
Breen, Joseph T.
Samy, Ravi N.
author_sort Redmann, Andrew J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Determine the proportion of patients starting the cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) process proceeding to cochlear implantation. Determine which patient factors are associated with undergoing cochlear implantation. METHODS: Retrospective case series of all patients scheduled for a CIE within a tertiary academic neurotology practice between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2016. Management pathways of patients undergoing CIE were examined. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty‐seven adult patients were scheduled for CIE during the study period. Two hundred twenty‐six patients started the evaluation process, and 203 patients completed full evaluation. Of patients that completed CIE, 166/203 (82%) met criteria for implantation and 37/203 (18%) did not meet criteria. Fifty‐nine patients out of 166 patients (36%) meeting criteria did not receive implants and 107/166 (64%) underwent implantation, yielding an overall implantation rate of 47% (107/226) among patients scheduled for CIE. Common reasons for deferring CI among candidates included failure to show up for preoperative appointment (24%), choosing hearing aids as an alternative (22%), patient refusal (21%) and insurance issues (17%). Overall, CIE led to a new adjunctive hearing device (CI or hearing aid) in 113 (113/203, 56%) cases. CONCLUSION: Fifty‐six (113/203) percent of patients who underwent CIE at an academic medical center underwent CI surgery or received an adjunctive hearing device, but 36% (59/166) of candidates did not receive a CI. Patients who forewent CI despite meeting candidacy criteria did so due to cost/insurance issues, or due to preference for auditory amplification rather than CI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8035943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80359432021-04-15 Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process Redmann, Andrew J. Tawfik, Kareem Hammer, Theresa Wenstrup, Lisa Stevens, Shawn Breen, Joseph T. Samy, Ravi N. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Otology, Neurotology, and Neuroscience OBJECTIVES: Determine the proportion of patients starting the cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) process proceeding to cochlear implantation. Determine which patient factors are associated with undergoing cochlear implantation. METHODS: Retrospective case series of all patients scheduled for a CIE within a tertiary academic neurotology practice between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2016. Management pathways of patients undergoing CIE were examined. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty‐seven adult patients were scheduled for CIE during the study period. Two hundred twenty‐six patients started the evaluation process, and 203 patients completed full evaluation. Of patients that completed CIE, 166/203 (82%) met criteria for implantation and 37/203 (18%) did not meet criteria. Fifty‐nine patients out of 166 patients (36%) meeting criteria did not receive implants and 107/166 (64%) underwent implantation, yielding an overall implantation rate of 47% (107/226) among patients scheduled for CIE. Common reasons for deferring CI among candidates included failure to show up for preoperative appointment (24%), choosing hearing aids as an alternative (22%), patient refusal (21%) and insurance issues (17%). Overall, CIE led to a new adjunctive hearing device (CI or hearing aid) in 113 (113/203, 56%) cases. CONCLUSION: Fifty‐six (113/203) percent of patients who underwent CIE at an academic medical center underwent CI surgery or received an adjunctive hearing device, but 36% (59/166) of candidates did not receive a CI. Patients who forewent CI despite meeting candidacy criteria did so due to cost/insurance issues, or due to preference for auditory amplification rather than CI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8035943/ /pubmed/33869764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of The Triological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Otology, Neurotology, and Neuroscience
Redmann, Andrew J.
Tawfik, Kareem
Hammer, Theresa
Wenstrup, Lisa
Stevens, Shawn
Breen, Joseph T.
Samy, Ravi N.
Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title_full Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title_fullStr Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title_full_unstemmed Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title_short Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
title_sort determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
topic Otology, Neurotology, and Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33869764
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546
work_keys_str_mv AT redmannandrewj determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT tawfikkareem determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT hammertheresa determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT wenstruplisa determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT stevensshawn determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT breenjosepht determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess
AT samyravin determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess