Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process
Abstract 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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-04-01
|
| Series: | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546 |
| _version_ | 1818870824947417088 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrew J. Redmann Kareem Tawfik Theresa Hammer Lisa Wenstrup Shawn Stevens Joseph T. Breen Ravi N. Samy |
| author_facet | Andrew J. Redmann Kareem Tawfik Theresa Hammer Lisa Wenstrup Shawn Stevens Joseph T. Breen Ravi N. Samy |
| author_sort | Andrew J. Redmann |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:13:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-508038f22f164d8ea70402d32d461728 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2378-8038 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:13:10Z |
| publishDate | 2021-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| spelling | doaj.art-508038f22f164d8ea70402d32d4617282022-12-21T20:22:07ZengWileyLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology2378-80382021-04-016232032410.1002/lio2.546Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation processAndrew J. Redmann0Kareem Tawfik1Theresa Hammer2Lisa Wenstrup3Shawn Stevens4Joseph T. Breen5Ravi N. Samy6Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USADepartment of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Vanderbilt University Nashville TN USADivision of Audiology University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USADivision of Audiology University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USABarrows Neurosurgical Clinic Phoenix Arizona USADepartment of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USADepartment of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USAAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546cochlear implantsevaluation processtreatment pathways |
| spellingShingle | Andrew J. Redmann Kareem Tawfik Theresa Hammer Lisa Wenstrup Shawn Stevens Joseph T. Breen Ravi N. Samy Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology cochlear implants evaluation process treatment pathways |
| 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 | cochlear implants evaluation process treatment pathways |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.546 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrewjredmann determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT kareemtawfik determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT theresahammer determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT lisawenstrup determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT shawnstevens determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT josephtbreen determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess AT ravinsamy determiningtreatmentchoicesafterthecochlearimplantevaluationprocess |