Cochlear implantation in the elderly: outcomes, long-term evolution, and predictive factors

García-Iza, Leire; Martínez, Z. Nelly; Ugarte, Ane; Fernández, Mercedes; Altuna, Xabier

doi:10.1007/s00405-018-4910-y

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has also been reported that it can improve cognitive tasks such as shortterm memory as well as reducing social isolation and symptoms of depression. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The data from our study show the beneficial effects of binaural hearing, and in particular at the phonetic matrices test, as the binaural group performed statistically significantly better than those aided by a single CI. A major drawback of this study is the absence of data on spatial hearing of the studied group, which were not collected in the past.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Rehabilitation of Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: Audiological Outcomes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to describe the audiological patterns of 71 adult patients presenting severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, who were rehabilitated by cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing aids. This is a retrospective study in a university setting, where the clinical records of 71 adult patients were reviewed and processed. Speech intelligibility was evaluated at one aided ear (CI) or at both aided ears (double CI or a combination of CI and hearing aid [HA]). Patients with a bilateral CI or with a bimodal hearing setup (CI and HA) performed better than those with a single CI; data from the phonetic matrices test showed that there was a statistically significant difference among patients aided by a single CI versus binaural setup (double CI or CI + HA). In particular, patients aided by a bilateral CI, or by a CI and HA, showed an improvement in the functional results of the speech tests, compared to patients using a single CI. Binaural hearing (either with a bilateral CI or bimodal) allows an improvement in the functional results at the speech tests, compared to the use of a CI only.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Rehabilitation of Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: Audiological Outcomes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Garcia-Iza et al [9] found that CI was equally successful from a hearing point of view in the young and elderly (>60 years old). A systematic review by Berrettini et al [10] also showed that patients with CI improved their speech recognition, and obtained better QoL and that CI was cost-effective even if the patient was implanted after 70 years of age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to begin a CI investigation early in elderly persons to improve QoL, anxiety and depression and to avoid any possible degeneration of the auditory system [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CI implantation, when performed in the elderly, is both safe and useful, and age does not influence CI outcomes. Older CI users show the same speech performance outcomes as younger patients, even after 10 years post implantation [9]. There is no upper limit age for getting a CI; instead, general health should form the basis when selecting patients for an implantation [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment – why not cochlear implants?

Turunen-Taheri

Edén

Hellström

et al. 2019

Acta Oto-Laryngologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI. Objectives: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group. Materials and methods: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated. Results: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81-100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons. Conclusions: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81-100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI. Significance: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss.

show abstract

“…However, in previous studies about the outcomes of CI surgery in elderly people, the cutoff age for the elderly was often set at 60–65 years [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Although the definition of elderly in Japan continues to be 65 years or over, recent studies show that the Japanese elderly are relatively youthful, and that those under the age of 75 years are often in good mental and physical health [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Outcomes and Complications of Cochlear Implantation in Elderly Patients over 75 Years of Age

Kanai

Kanemaru

Tamura

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Populations are aging in many countries, and the proportion of elderly people with severe to profound hearing loss is increasing in parallel with the increasing average life span. The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of cochlear implant (CI) surgery in elderly patients compared to those in younger patients. Methods: The outcomes of CI surgery were retrospectively investigated for 81 adults (32 men and 49 women) who underwent CI surgery at our hospital. They were divided according to age at the time of implantation into the younger group (<75 years of age; n = 49) or elderly group (≥75 years of age; n = 32). Results: The mean sentence recognition score on the CI-2004 Japanese open-set test battery (±standard deviation) was 82.9% ± 24.1 in the younger group and 81.9% ± 23.2 in the elderly group, with no significant difference between the groups (Mann–Whitney U test). The incidence of major complications that required surgical treatment was not significantly different between the groups (4.1% vs. 6.2%, respectively). Thus, there were no severe complications that could affect general health status in either group. Three patients in each group died for reasons unrelated to CI surgery during follow-up. The proportion of patients who were alive and continued to use the CI five years after surgery was 92.8% and 91.5%, respectively. Conclusion: Our results show good speech recognition and a low incidence of major complications in elderly patients. This comprehensive report on the outcomes of CI surgery in elderly patients will be helpful to the elderly with severe to profound hearing loss when deciding whether to undergo CI surgery.

show abstract

Cochlear implantation in the elderly: outcomes, long-term evolution, and predictive factors

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Rehabilitation of Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: Audiological Outcomes

Rehabilitation of Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: Audiological Outcomes

Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment – why not cochlear implants?

Hearing Outcomes and Complications of Cochlear Implantation in Elderly Patients over 75 Years of Age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About