Hearing-related quality of life assessment of pediatric cochlear implant users with inner ear malformations.

Budak Z., Batuk M., Dincer D'alessandro H., Sennaroğlu G.

International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, vol.160, pp.111243, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 160
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111243
  • Journal Name: International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Page Numbers: pp.111243
  • Keywords: Inner ear malformations, Hearing -related quality of life, Children, Adolescents, Cochlear implant
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


© 2022 Elsevier B.V.Objectives: To assess the quality of life (QoL) in child and adolescent cochlear implant users with inner ear malformations (IEM) and to compare their outcomes to their cochlear implant using peers with normal inner ear structures. Methods: The present sample consisted of 100 children (45 with IEM, 55 without IEM) and 100 adolescents (46 with IEM, 54 without IEM). The following QoL questionnaires were used to assess the hearing-related QoL: The Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life 26 (HEAR-QL-26 for children between 7 and 12 years of age) and HEAR-QL-28 (for adolescents between 13 and 18 years of age). Both questionnaires were based on a 5-points Likert scale from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating a better perception of QoL. The scores were converted to percentage values (never = 100, almost never = 75, sometimes = 50, often = 25, almost always = 0). Results: For the patients with IEM, mean scores from the HEAR-QL-26 and HEAR-QL-28 were 50.4 (SD = 18.9) and 54.5 (SD = 19.6), respectively. For the patients without IEM, mean scores from the HEAR-QL-26 and HEAR-QL-28 were 72.7 (SD = 18.0) and 65.0 (SD = 19.1), respectively. For both child and adolescent subgroups, statistically significant differences were observed between QoL scores from patients with and without IEM (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant effects of the malformation type on the QoL findings (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Child and adolescent cochlear implant users with IEM had significantly lower scores on validated HEAR-QL versions in comparison to their implanted peers without IEM.