Audiology Telemedicine Evaluations: Potential Expanded Applications.

Autor: Fletcher KT; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., Dicken FW; 2 University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., Adkins MM; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., Cline TA; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., McNulty BN; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., Shinn JB; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA., Bush ML; 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery [Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg] 2019 Jul; Vol. 161 (1), pp. 63-66. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Mar 05.
DOI: 10.1177/0194599819835541
Abstrakt: There is underutilization of cochlear implants with delays in implantation linked to distance from implant centers. Telemedicine could connect cochlear implant specialists with patients in rural locations. We piloted telemedicine cochlear implant testing in a small study, largely composed of normal-hearing volunteers to trial this new application of teleaudiology technology. Thirteen subjects (8 with normal hearing and 5 with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound) underwent a traditional cochlear implant evaluation in person and then via telemedicine technology. Routine audiometry, word recognition testing, and Arizona Biological Test (AzBio) and consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) testing were performed. Mean (SD) percent difference in AzBio between in-person and remote testing was 1.7% (2.06%). Pure tone average (PTA), speech reception threshold (SRT), and word recognition were similar between methods. CNC testing showed a mean (SD) difference of 6.8% (10.2%) between methods. Testing conditions were acceptable to audiologists and subjects. Further study to validate this method in cochlear implant candidates and a larger population is warranted.
Databáze: MEDLINE