Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares

Self-Reported Voice-Related Quality of Life in Cochlear Implant Users

Publicado 2023-11-30 — Actualizado el 2023-12-11

Abrir | Descargar
HTML Icon XML Icon PDF Icon Flip Icon
Número
Vol. 5 Núm. 2 (2023)
Sección
Artículos de investigación
Cómo citar
1.
Calidad de vida relacionada con la voz autoinformada en usuarios de implantes cocleares. Rev. Investig. Innov. Cienc. Salud [Internet]. 2023 Dec. 11 [cited 2024 Dec. 22];5(2):69-92. Available from: https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/232
DOI

https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.232
Dimensions
PlumX
Licencia
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Pasquale Bottalico
Department of Speech and Hearing Science; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Champaign; United States
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7394-4796
    Abel Plachno
    Department of Speech and Hearing Science; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Champaign; United States
      https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0300-1306
      Charles Nudelman
      Department of Speech and Hearing Science; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Champaign; United States
        https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3576-6770
        Mostrar biografía de los autores

        Objetivo. Este estudio identificó si los usuarios de implantes cocleares (IC) están percibiendo una disminución en la calidad de su vida debido a problemas de voz. Además, evaluó la percepción de la voz de 43 usuarios de IC y cómo afecta su calidad de vida a través de una encuesta.

        Enfoque. Cuarenta y tres usuarios de IC respondieron a una encuesta sobre su demografía, detalles sobre su IC, la Hearing Health Quick Test (HHQT), la Voice Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) y el Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Las respuestas de la encuesta se analizaron mediante un análisis de regresión lineal univariado.

        Resultados. Pocos usuarios de IC puntuaron por debajo del límite para calidad de vida relacionada con la voz. El promedio V-RQOL fue de 93,4/100; solo 4 participantes tuvieron puntuación anormal en VHI-10. Las bajas puntuaciones en V-RQOL se correlacionaron con título de asociado y menos visitas por pérdida auditiva; las puntuaciones VHI-10, con sexo, educación, dificultad en situaciones sociales, exposición al ruido y tinnitus.

        Limitaciones del estudio. La pequeña n fue la principal limitación de este estudio.

        Originalidad. Este estudio fue uno de los primeros en examinar la calidad de vida relacionada con la voz en usuarios de CI.

        Conclusiones. En general, los encuestados no percibieron mucha dificultad relacionada con la voz. Sin embargo, era más probable que percibieran dificultades relacionadas con la voz si tenían dificultades para oír en ruido y evitaban situaciones sociales debido a la pérdida auditiva.

         

        Visitas del artículo 386 | Visitas PDF 125

        1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). Quick Statistics About Hearing [Internet]. 2021 Mar 25.. Available from: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing
        2. Mildner V, Liker M. Fricatives, affricates, and vowels in Croatian children with cochlear implants. Clin Linguist Phon [Internet]. 2008 Jan;22(10–11):845–56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200802130557
        3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Cochlear Implants. [Internet]. 2004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1044/policy.TR2004-00041
        4. Oticon Medical. Cochlear implants - a modern miracle | Oticon Medical. [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.oticonmedical.com/us/cochlear-implants
        5. Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hearing Implants. Cochlear. [Internet]. 2022. [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/products-and-accessories/cochlear-nucleus-system/nucleus-implants
        6. van der Jagt MA, Briaire JJ, Verbist BM, Frijns JHM. Comparison of the HiFocus Mid-Scala and HiFocus 1J Electrode Array: Angular Insertion Depths and Speech Perception Outcomes. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(5):316-25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448581
        7. MED-EL Pro. MED-EL Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays. [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/products/electrode-arrays
        8. Aronoff JM, Stelmach J, Padilla M, Landsberger DM. Interleaved processors improve cochlear implant patients' spectral resolution. Ear Hear. 2016;37(2):e85-e90. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000249
        9. Staisloff HE, Aronoff JM. Comparing methods for pairing electrodes across ears with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2021;42(5):1218-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001006
        10. MED-EL Pro. Why MED-EL: Cochlear Implants. [Internet] [cited 2023 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.medel.pro/systems/cochlear-implant-system
        11. Iddings T. Cochlear Implants for Adults: Evaluation, Implantation and Outcomes. 2022 Oct 17.
        12. Eshraghi AA, Ahmed J, Krysiak E, Ila K, Ashman P, Telischi FF, et al. Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137(4):384-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2016.1256499
        13. Zanetti D, Nassif N, Redaelli De Zinis LO. Factors affecting residual hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2015;35(6):433-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-619
        14. Schafer EC, Miller S, Manning J, Zhang Q, Lavi A, Bodish E, et al. Meta-Analysis of Speech Recognition Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3):241-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00141
        15. Forli F, Lazzerini F, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, Berrettini S. Cochlear Implant in the Elderly: Results in Terms of Speech Perception and Quality of Life. Audiol Neurootol. 2019;24(2):77-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000499176
        16. Bourn SS, Goldstein MR, Morris SA, Jacob A. Cochlear implant outcomes in the very elderly. Am J Otolaryngol. 2022;43(1):103200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103200
        17. McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Bhenswala PN, Nguyen SA, Dubno JR. General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(6):745-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002225
        18. McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, Franko-Tobin E, Droghini R, Nguyen SA, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):982-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26738
        19. Luo X, Kern A, Pulling KR. Vocal emotion recognition performance predicts the quality of life in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;144(5):EL429-35.. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5079575
        20. Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L, Vasil K, Wuchini T, Pisoni DB, et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things? Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):959-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26791
        21. Abbs E, Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, O’Brien E, Harmon B. Cochlear Implant Users’ Vocal Control Correlates Across Tasks. J Voice. 2020;34(3): 490e.7-490e.10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.10.008
        22. Liu H, Behroozmand R, Larson CR. Chapter 9.3 - Audio-vocal interactions in the mammalian brain. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience. Vol 19. Elsevier; 2010. p. 393-402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374593-4.00036-X
        23. Zamani P, Bayat A, Saki N, Ataee E, Bagheripour H. Post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users’ speech and voice characteristics: Cochlear implant turned-on versus turned-off. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141(4): 367-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1866778
        24. Frankford SA, Marks KL, Feaster TF, Doyle PC, Stepp CE. Symptom Expression Across Voiced Speech Sounds in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia. J Voice. Forthcoming 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.10.002
        25. Medved DMS, Cavalheri LMR, Coelho AC, Fernandes ACN, da Silva EM, Sampaio AL.et al. Systematic Review of Auditory Perceptual and Acoustic Characteristics of the Voice of Cochlear Implant Adult Users. J Voice. 2021;35(6):934.e7-934.e16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.023
        26. Teixeira JP, Oliveira C, Lopes C. Vocal Acoustic Analysis – Jitter, Shimmer and HNR Parameters. Procedia Technol. 2013;9:1112-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.124
        27. Li G, Hou Q, Zhang C, Jiang Z, Gong S. Acoustic parameters for the evaluation of voice quality in patients with voice disorders. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(1):118-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-2102
        28. Ruff S, Bocklet T, Nöth E, Müller J, Hoster E, Schuster M. Speech Production Quality of Cochlear Implant Users with Respect to Duration and Onset of Hearing Loss. ORL. 2017;79(5): 282-294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000479819
        29. An YS, Kim ST, Chung JW. Preoperative Voice Parameters Affect the Postoperative Speech Intelligibility in Patients with Cochlear Implantation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;5(suppl 1):S69-S72. Available from: https://www.e-ceo.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3342/ceo.2012.5.S1.S69
        30. Aronoff JM, Kirchner A, Abbs E, Harmon B. When singing with cochlear implants, are two ears worse than one for perilingually/postlingually deaf individuals? J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;143(6):EL503-EL508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5043093
        31. Kirchner A, Loucks TM, Abbs E, Shi K, Yu KS, Aronoff JM. Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147(4):2423-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001099
        32. Timmons Sund L, Collum JA, Bhatt NK, Hapner ER. VHI-10 Scores in a Treatment-Seeking Population With Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2023 Mar;37(2):290.e1-290.e6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.12.017
        33. Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, Zullo T, Murry T. Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(9):1549-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009
        34. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice. 1999;13(4):557-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80010-1
        35. Kupfer RA, Hogikyan EM, Hogikyan ND. Establishment of a Normative Database for the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) Measure. J Voice. 2014;28(4):449-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.11.003
        36. Hsu H-W, Fang T-J, Lee L-A, Tsou Y-T, Chen SH, Wu C-M. Multidimensional evaluation of vocal quality in children with cochlear implants: a cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol [Internet]. 2014 Feb;39(1):32–8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.12213
        37. Cappellaro J, Beber BC. Vocal Tract Discomfort and Voice-Related Quality of Life in Wind Instrumentalists. J Voice. 2018;32(3):314-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.05.011
        38. Spina AL, Maunsell R, Sandalo K, Gusmão R, Crespo A. Correlation between voice and life quality and occupation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(2):275-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30790-4
        39. Cantor Cutiva LC, Burdorf A. Factors Associated with Voice-Related Quality of Life among Teachers with Voice Complaints. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:134-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.05.003
        40. Lu D, Wen B, Yang H, Chen F, Liu J, Xu Y., et al. A Comparative Study of the VHI-10 and the V-RQOL for Quality of Life Among Chinese Teachers With and Without Voice Disorders. J Voice. 2017;31(4):509.e1-509.e6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.025
        41. Alarouj H, Althekerallah JM, AlAli H, Ebrahim MA, Ebrahim MAK. A Comparative Study Utilizing the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) in Teachers and the General Population of Kuwait. J Voice. 2022;36(2):289.e1-289.e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.006
        42. Moy FM, Hoe VCW, Hairi NN, Chu AHY, Bulgiba A, Koh D. Determinants and Effects of Voice Disorders among Secondary School Teachers in Peninsular Malaysia Using a Validated Malay Version of VHI-10. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141963
        43. Cohen SM, Turley R. Coprevalence and impact of dysphonia and hearing loss in the elderly. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(9):1870-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20590
        44. Colby S, Orena AJ. Recognizing Voices Through a Cochlear Implant: A Systematic Review of Voice Perception, Talker Discrimination, and Talker Identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022;65(8):3165-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00209
        45. Tourville JA, Guenther FH. The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process [Internet]. 2011 Aug;26(7):952–81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424
        46. Guo M, Li S, Liu J, Sun F. Family Relations, Social Connections, and Mental Health Among Latino and Asian Older Adults. Research on Aging [Internet]. 2014 Feb 23;37(2):123–47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027514523298
        Publicar con RIICS

        Scimago

        Most read in the last 30 days

        Sistema OJS 3.4.0.7 - Metabiblioteca |