Purpose: Managing hearing health in older adults has become a public health imperative, and cochlear implantation is now the standard of care for aural rehabilitation when hearing aids no longer provide sufficient benefit. The aim of our study was to compare speech performance in cochlear implant patients ≥80 years of age (Very Elderly) to a younger elderly cohort between ages 65-79 years (Less Elderly).
Materials And Methods: Data were collected from 53 patients ≥80 years of age and 92 patients age 65-79 years who underwent cochlear implantation by the senior author between April 1, 2017 and May 12, 2020. The primary outcome measure compared preoperative AzBio Quiet scores to 6-month post-activation AzBio Quiet results for both cohorts.
Results: Very Elderly patients progressed from an average AzBio Quiet score of 22% preoperatively to a score of 45% in the implanted ear at 6-months post-activation (p < 0.001) while the Less Elderly progressed from an average score of 27% preoperatively to 60% at 6-months (p < 0.001). Improvements in speech intelligibility were statistically significant within each of these cohorts (p < 0.001). Comparative statistics using independent samples t-test and evaluation of effect size using the Hedges' g statistic demonstrated a significant difference for average improvement of AzBio in quiet scores between groups with a medium effect size (p = 0.03, g = 0.35). However, when the very oldest patients (90+ years) were removed, the statistical difference between groups disappeared (p = 0.09).
Conclusions: When assessing CI performance, those over age 65 are typically compared to younger patients; however, this manuscript further stratifies audiometric outcomes for older CI recipients in a single-surgeon, high-volume practice. Our data indicates that for speech intelligibility, patients between age 65-79 perform similarly to CI recipients 80-90 years of age and should not be dismissed as potential cochlear implant candidates.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103200 | DOI Listing |
Audiol Res
December 2024
Division of Audiology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.
Background/objectives: Adult hearing-impaired patients qualifying for cochlear implants typically exhibit less than 60% sentence recognition under the best hearing aid conditions, either in quiet or noisy environments, with speech and noise presented through a single speaker. This study examines the influence of deep neural network-based (DNN-based) noise reduction on cochlear implant evaluation.
Methods: Speech perception was assessed using AzBio sentences in both quiet and noisy conditions (multi-talker babble) at 5 and 10 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) through one loudspeaker.
Otol Neurotol
January 2025
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Objective: To evaluate cochlear implant speech perception among patients with sporadic inner ear schwannoma who underwent ipsilateral implantation.
Study Design: Retrospective multi-institutional cohort study.
Setting: Eleven tertiary academic medical centers across Germany, Denmark, and the United States.
medRxiv
November 2024
Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43212.
Objectives: This study investigated the relationships between the cochlear nerve (CN) health and sentence-level speech perception outcomes measured in quiet and noise in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users.
Design: Study participants included 24 postlingually deafened adult CI users with a Cochlear Nucleus device. For each participant, only one ear was tested.
Ear Hear
October 2024
Deparment of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Objectives: While single-sided deafness cochlear implants (SSD-CIs) have now received regulatory approval in the United States, candidate-ear candidacy criteria (no better than 5% word-recognition score) are stricter than for traditional CI candidates (50 to 60% speech recognition, best-aided condition). SSD implantation in our center began before regulatory approval, using a criterion derived from traditional candidacy: 50% consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word-identification score in the candidate ear. A retrospective analysis investigated whether SSD patients exceeding the 5% CNC criterion nevertheless benefitted from a CI as assessed by spatial-hearing tests (speech understanding in noise [SIN] and localization) and by a patient-reported outcome measure quality-of-life instrument validated for patients with CIs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOtol Neurotol
December 2024
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Introduction: Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) provides cochlear implant (CI) recipients with preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing in the implanted ear affording auditory cues not reliably transmitted by the CI including fundamental frequency, temporal fine structure, and interaural time differences (ITDs). A prospective US multicenter clinical trial was conducted examining the safety and effectiveness of a hybrid CI for delivering EAS.
Materials And Methods: Fifty-two adults (mean age 59.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!