OBJECTIVES: To objectively evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of cochlear implantation in an elderly population. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Neurotology unit at Manchester Royal Infirmary, a supraregional tertiary referral centre in collaboration with Adult Cochlear Implant Programme at The University of Manchester. PARTICIPANTS: All cochlear implant procedures (38) undertaken on post-lingually deafened elderly patients (age range at the time of implantation 65-80 years, n = 34) in the period from 1989 to 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical and surgical outcomes. Audiological performance outcomes for isolated words, words in sentences in quiet and noise. Functional outcome measures used are self-reported measures of the social, psychological and emotional aspects of quality of life, and the differences between expectations for functional outcomes and the realization of functional outcomes. They included expectation profiles, Glasgow Benefit inventory (GBI) and Glasgow Health Status Inventory Questionnaire (GHSI). RESULTS: There was statistically significant improvement post-implantation of both open and closed set test scores (P < 0.01). Eighty-two percentage of patients were completely satisfied with their cochlear implants. Patients judged that implantation restored half the loss of quality of life that they had experienced as a result of severe-profound deafness with a highly significant (P < 0.001) improvement in overall quality of life after implantation. The commonest post-operative observation was transient mild pyrexia. CONCLUSIONS: The age of a cochlear implant candidate should not be a factor in the candidacy decision-making process. The quality of life of our elderly recipients was significantly improved after cochlear implant.
OBJECTIVES: To objectively evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of cochlear implantation in an elderly population. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Neurotology unit at Manchester Royal Infirmary, a supraregional tertiary referral centre in collaboration with Adult Cochlear Implant Programme at The University of Manchester. PARTICIPANTS: All cochlear implant procedures (38) undertaken on post-lingually deafened elderly patients (age range at the time of implantation 65-80 years, n = 34) in the period from 1989 to 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical and surgical outcomes. Audiological performance outcomes for isolated words, words in sentences in quiet and noise. Functional outcome measures used are self-reported measures of the social, psychological and emotional aspects of quality of life, and the differences between expectations for functional outcomes and the realization of functional outcomes. They included expectation profiles, Glasgow Benefit inventory (GBI) and Glasgow Health Status Inventory Questionnaire (GHSI). RESULTS: There was statistically significant improvement post-implantation of both open and closed set test scores (P < 0.01). Eighty-two percentage of patients were completely satisfied with their cochlear implants. Patients judged that implantation restored half the loss of quality of life that they had experienced as a result of severe-profound deafness with a highly significant (P < 0.001) improvement in overall quality of life after implantation. The commonest post-operative observation was transient mild pyrexia. CONCLUSIONS: The age of a cochlear implant candidate should not be a factor in the candidacy decision-making process. The quality of life of our elderly recipients was significantly improved after cochlear implant.
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Craig A Velozo; Meredith A Holcomb; Elizabeth L Camposeo; Jonathan L Hatch; Ted A Meyer; Paul R Lambert; Cathy L Melvin; Judy R Dubno Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: James H Clark; Jennifer Yeagle; Alicia I Arbaje; Frank R Lin; John K Niparko; Howard W Francis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Janet S Choi; Kevin J Contrera; Joshua F Betz; Caitlin R Blake; John K Niparko; Frank R Lin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.311