Новые книги

IMPORTANCE The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant. OBJECTIVE To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI. INTERVENTIONS The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing. RESULTS Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60 degrees, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness

Validation of the U-STARR with the AB-York crescent of sound, a new instrument to evaluate speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing skills

The Advanced Bionics ® (AB)-York crescent of sound is a new test setup that comprises speech intelligibility in noise and localization tests that represent everyday listening situations. One of its tests is the Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (STARR) with sentences and noise both presented from straight ahead. For the Dutch population, we adopted the AB-York setup and replaced the English sentences with a validated set of Dutch sentences. The Dutch version of the STARR is called the Utrecht-STARR (U-STARR). This study primarily assesses the validity and reliability of the U-STARR compared to the Plomp test, which is the current Dutch gold standard for speech-in-noise testing. The outcome of both tests is a speech reception threshold in noise (SRTn). Secondary outcomes are the SRTn measured with sounds from spatially separated sources (SISSS) as well as sound localization capability. We tested 29 normal-hearing adults and 18 postlingually deafened adult patients with unilateral cochlear implants (CI). This study shows that the U-STARR is adequate and reliable and seems better suited for severely hearing-impaired persons than the conventional Plomp test. Further, CI patients have poor spatial listening skills, as demonstrated with the AB-York test

Validation of the U-STARR with the AB-York crescent of sound, a new instrument to evaluate speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing skills

The Advanced Bionics ® (AB)-York crescent of sound is a new test setup that comprises speech intelligibility in noise and localization tests that represent everyday listening situations. One of its tests is the Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (STARR) with sentences and noise both presented from straight ahead. For the Dutch population, we adopted the AB-York setup and replaced the English sentences with a validated set of Dutch sentences. The Dutch version of the STARR is called the Utrecht-STARR (U-STARR). This study primarily assesses the validity and reliability of the U-STARR compared to the Plomp test, which is the current Dutch gold standard for speech-in-noise testing. The outcome of both tests is a speech reception threshold in noise (SRTn). Secondary outcomes are the SRTn measured with sounds from spatially separated sources (SISSS) as well as sound localization capability. We tested 29 normal-hearing adults and 18 postlingually deafened adult patients with unilateral cochlear implants (CI). This study shows that the U-STARR is adequate and reliable and seems better suited for severely hearing-impaired persons than the conventional Plomp test. Further, CI patients have poor spatial listening skills, as demonstrated with the AB-York test

Cost-Utility of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-utility of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) versus unilateral CI. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults eligible for cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from a health insurance perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was assessed using the HUI3, TTO, VAS on hearing, VAS on general health and EQ-5D. We modeled the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of unilateral versus bilateral CI over periods of 2, 5, 10, 25 years, and actual life-expectancy. RESULTS: Direct costs for unilateral and bilateral CI were €43,883 ± €11,513(SD) and €87,765 ± €23,027(SD) respectively. Annual costs from the second year onward were €3,435 ± €1,085(SD) and €6,871 ± €2,169(SD), respectively. A cost-utility analysis revealed that a second implant became cost-effective after a 5- to 10-year period, based on the HUI3, TTO, and VAS on hearing. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that describes a cost-utility analysis to compare unilateral with simultaneous bilateral CI in postlingually deafened adults, using a multicenter RCT. Compared with accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, simultaneous bilateral CI is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer

Stable benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implantation after two years: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives/HypothesisTo investigate hearing capabilities and self-reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) after a 2-year follow-up and to evaluate the learning effect of cochlear implantees over time. Study DesignMulticenter randomized controlled trial. MethodsThirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in this study and randomly allocated to either UCI or simultaneous BiCI. Our primary outcome was speech intelligibility in noise, with speech and noise coming from straight ahead (Utrecht-Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels). Secondary outcomes were speech intelligibility in noise with spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence (Dutch phoneme test), localization capabilities and self-reported benefits assessed with different quality of hearing and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. This article describes the results after 2 years of follow-up. ResultsWe found comparable results for the UCI and simultaneous BiCI group, when speech and noise were both presented from straight ahead. Patients in the BiCI group performed significantly better than patients in the UCI group, when speech and noise came from different directions (P = .01). Furthermore, their localization capabilities were significantly better. These results were consistent with patients' self-reported hearing capabilities, but not with the questionnaires regarding QoL. We found no significant differences on any of the subjective and objective reported outcomes between the 1-year and 2-year follow-up. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates important benefits of simultaneous BiCI compared with UCI that remain stable over time. Bilaterally implanted patients benefit significantly in difficult everyday listening situations such as when speech and noise come from different directions. Furthermore, bilaterally implanted patients are able to localize sounds, which is impossible for unilaterally implanted patients. Level of Evidence1b Laryngoscope, 127:1161-1168, 201

Bibliometric delineation of scientific fields

International audienceDelineation of scientific domains (fields, areas of science) is a prior task in bibliometric studies at the meso-level, far from straightforward in domains with high multidisciplinarity, variety and instability. The Context section shows the connection of delineation problem to the question of disciplines vs. invisible colleges, through three combinable models: ready-made classifications of science, classical information retrieval searches, mapping and clustering. They differ in the role and modalities of supervision. The Tools section sketches various bibliometric techniques on the background of information retrieval, data analysis, network theory, showing both their power and their limitations in delineation processes. The role and modalities of supervision are emphasized. The section Multiple Networks and Hybridization addresses the comparison and combination of bibliometric networks (actors, texts, citations) and the various ways of hybridization. In the concluding section, typical protocols and further questions are proposed