Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20262824225
Revista CEFAC
Brief Communication

Cochlear implant: A comparative analysis of using time

Implante coclear: análise comparativa do tempo de uso  

Adriana Laybauer Silveira Unchalo; Fabiane Regina Monteiro de Ávila; Adriane Ribeiro Teixeira

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20262824225 Revista CEFAC, vol.28, n2, e4225, 2025
PDF English
PDF Português
SciELO
Downloads: 1
Views: 608

Abstract

Purpose: to compare the time of cochlear implant use reported by caregivers and/or users with the actual time of use measured by data logging.

Methods: across-sectional study of cochlear implant patients with a data logging system compared reported data with logged data. The analysis used Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.05).

Results: the sample comprised 46 individuals - 63% being females, and 80.4% being children. The reported time of use ranged from 8 to 14 hours, and the measured time ranged from 1 to 12 hours. The variables differed significantly: the reported time was 2.1 hours, on average, greater than the measured time (p < 0.001) in the overall sample and in the groups of children/adolescents and adults/older adults.

Conclusion: the time reported by family members/caregivers and/or users differed from the actual time of cochlear implant use; the actual time of use was less than that reported for time of use.

Keywords

Cochlear Implant; Hearing Loss; Children; Adults; Aged

Resumo

Objetivo: comparar o tempo referido de uso do implante coclear (IC) pelos responsáveis e/ou usuários com o tempo de uso real aferido pelo registro de dados.

Métodos: estudo transversal, incluindo pacientes em uso de IC com sistema de registro de dados. Foi feita a comparação entre os dados relatados e os constantes no software. A análise foi realizada por meio do teste t-student ou Mann-Whitney (p < 0,05).

Resultados: a amostra foi composta por 46 indivíduos, sendo 63% do sexo feminino e a maioria crianças (80,4%). O tempo de uso referido variou entre oito e 14 horas, e o tempo aferido entre um e 12 horas. Foi constatada diferença significativa entre as variáveis analisadas, sendo o tempo referido, em média, 2,1 horas maior do que o aferido (p < 0,001), na amostra geral e nos grupos de crianças/adolescentes e adultos/idosos.

Conclusão: houve diferença entre o tempo referido pelos familiares/responsáveis e/ou usuários e tempo de uso real do implante coclear, sendo o tempo real menor que o tempo de uso referido.

Palavras-chave

Implante Coclear; Perda Auditiva; Crianças; Adultos; Idosos

Referencias

1. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde. [Webpage on the Internet]. Brasília: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [Accessed on 5 Jun 2025]. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/5721#notas-tabela

2. Sales CB, Resende LM, Amaral CFS. Auditory rehabilitation in adults: Results of training program. Rev. CEFAC. 2019;21(5):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/201921510318

3. Fortunato CAU, Bevilacqua MC, Costa MPR. Comparative of verbal language analysis of listeners children and deaf children with cochlear implant. Rev. CEFAC. 2009;1(4):662-72. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462009000800015

4. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria nº 2.776, de 18 de dezembro de 2014. Diretrizes Gerais para a Atenção Especializada às Pessoas com Deficiência Auditiva no Sistema Único De Saúde - SUS/Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Departamento de Atenção Especializada e Temática. Coordenação Geral de Média e Alta Complexidade. Brasília. 2014

5. Garcez V, Teixeira AR. Aparelho de amplificação sonora individual/componentes e características eletroacústicas. In: Boechat EM, Menezes PL, Couto CM, Frizzo ACF, Scharlach RC, Anastasio ART, editors. Tratado de audiologia. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan Ed. 2015. p.253-8.

6. Ramos D, Jorge JX, Teixera A, Ribeiro C, Paiva A. The impact of cochlear implant in the oral language of children with congenital deafness. Acta Med Port. 2015;28(4):442-7.

7. Oliveira JAA. Cochlear implant. Medicina (Ribeirão Preto). 2005;38(3/4):262-72.

8. Morettin M, Cardoso MRA, Delamura AM, Zabeu JS, Amantini RCB, Bevilacqua MC. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for monitoring patients using cochlear implants. CoDAS. 2013;25(3)216-23. https://doi.org/10.590/s2317-17822013000300005 PMID: 24408331.

9. Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear Implant Programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2012;45(1):111-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2011.08.020 PMID: 22115685.

10. Vassoler TMF, Cordeiro ML. Brazilian adaptation of the Functioning After Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (FAPCI): Comparison between normal hearing and cochlear implanted children. J. Pediatr (Rio J). 2015;91(2):160-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2014.06.008 PMID: 25458875.

11. Sousa AF, Couto MI, Martinho-Carvalho AC. Quality of life and cochlear implant: Results in adults with postlingual hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84(4):494-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.06.005

12. Froemke RC, Heman-ackah SE, Waltzman SB. Neuroplasticidade auditiva. In: Waltzman SB, Roland Jr. TJ, editors. Implantes Cocleares. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2016. p.38-46.

13. Laybauer AS. Implante Coclear. In: Ferreira MIDC, editor. Reabilitação auditiva: Fundamentos e proposições para a atuação no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Ribeirão Preto. Book Toy; 2017. p.123-41.

14. Cruz MS, Oliveira LR, Carandina L, Lima MCP, Cesar CLG, Barros MBA et al. Prevalence of self-reported hearing loss and attributed causes: A population-based study. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(5):1123-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2009000500019 PMID: 19488497

15. Moret ALM, Bevilacqua MC, Costa OA. Cochlear implant: Hearing and language in pre-lingual deaf children. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cientif. 2007;19(3):295-304. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872007000300008 PMID: 17934605.

16. Wiseman KB, Warner-Czyz AD. Inconsistent device use in pediatric cochlear implant users: Prevalence and risk factors. Cochlear Implant Int. 2018;19(3):131-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2017.1418161 PMID: 29299970.

17. Guerzoni L, Cuda D. Speech processor data logging helps in predicting early linguistic outcomes in implanted children. Int J Pediatr Otorrinolaryngol. 2017;101:81-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.026 PMID: 28964316.

18. Barbosa MH, Felix F, Ribeiro MG, Tomita S, Pinheiro C, Baptista MM. Profile of patients assessed for cochlear implants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;80(4):305-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.05.011

19. Wiseman KB, Warner-Czyz AD, Kwon S, Fiorentino K, Sweeney M. Relationship between daily device use and early communication outcomes in young children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hear. 2021;42(4):1042-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000999 PMID: 33974791.

20. Awad DR, Castaño JE, Chi DH. Socioeconomic status and cochlear implant usage: A dalalogging study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2023;132(12):1535-42. https://doi.org/10.177/00034894231170588 PMID: 37096343.

21. Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Conrad CA, Zwolan TA. Datalogging statistics and speech recognition during the first year of use in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):e686-e693. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002248 PMID: 31135672.

22. Costa LBA, Vicente LC, Silva LTN, Alvarenga KF, Salgado MH, Costa AO et al. Analysis of aided thresholds in children who have undergone cochlear reimplantation: A ten-year follow-up. CoDAS. 2023;35(6):e20210293. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232021293en PMID: 37909539.

23. Contrera KJ, Choi JS, Blake CR, Betz JF, Niparko JK, Lin FR. Rates of long-term cochlear implant use in children. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(3):426-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000243 PMID: 24518403; PMCID: PMC3927162.

24. Ganek HV, Cushing SL, Papsin BC, Gordon KA. Cochlear implant use remains consistent over time in children with single-sided deafness. Ear Hear. 2020;41(3):678-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000797 PMID: 31567563.

25. Busch T, Vanpoucke F, van Wieringen A. Auditory environment across the life span of cochlear implant users: Insights from data logging. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(5):1362-77. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-16-0162 PMID: 28418532.

26. Moore BJC. The perception of emotion in music by people with hearing loss and people with cochlear implants. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024;379(1908):20230258. https://10.1098/rstb.2023.0258 PMID: 39005027.
 

Submitted date:
05/06/2025

Accepted date:
30/10/2025

69c1959ca95395463f0f32e8 cefac Articles
1982-0216 (Electrónico) 1516-1846 (Impreso)
Revista CEFAC ©2026 Todos los derechos reservados sobre el contenido de este sitio web. Los artículos siguen sus propias licencias.

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections