Leire Garcia-Iza1, Zuriñe Martinez2, Ane Ugarte2, Mercedes Fernandez2, Xabier Altuna2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Donostia University Hospital, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain. leire.garcia.iza@gmail.com. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Donostia University Hospital, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal in this study is to find out the outcomes of cochlear implantation in elderly (> 60 years) and check if this improvement is similar to that of their younger counterparts in short- and long-term evolution. In addition, we have attempted to ascertain the predictive factors that might affect the verbal comprehension results of older patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Ninety-four patients older than 40 years, divided into two groups. 40-60 years n = 55 and > 60 years n = 39. A pure-tone audiometry, a disyllabic word test, and the test of phonetically balanced sentences of Navarra were made in silence to each patient. These measurements were made pre-implantation and 1, 5, and 10 year post-implantation. Peri- and postoperative complications were registered. The hypothetic predictive factors of post-implanted performance were evaluated in the elderly. RESULTS: Our study shows no significant difference between young and old adult´s outcomes in short- and long-term evolutions, nor in the complication rate. Furthermore, we proved the significant influence of the side of implantation, use of hearing aids, and duration of hearing loss in the short- and long-term results in the elderly. CONCLUSION: This study shows that cochlear implantation in the elderly is as safe, useful, and worthwhile as in young adults. Age has a low influence in cochlear implant outcomes; however, we have found the significant influence of the side of implantation, the use of hearing aids, and the duration of hearing loss in the short- and long-term results.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal in this study is to find out the outcomes of cochlear implantation in elderly (> 60 years) and check if this improvement is similar to that of their younger counterparts in short- and long-term evolution. In addition, we have attempted to ascertain the predictive factors that might affect the verbal comprehension results of older patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Ninety-four patients older than 40 years, divided into two groups. 40-60 years n = 55 and > 60 years n = 39. A pure-tone audiometry, a disyllabic word test, and the test of phonetically balanced sentences of Navarra were made in silence to each patient. These measurements were made pre-implantation and 1, 5, and 10 year post-implantation. Peri- and postoperative complications were registered. The hypothetic predictive factors of post-implanted performance were evaluated in the elderly. RESULTS: Our study shows no significant difference between young and old adult´s outcomes in short- and long-term evolutions, nor in the complication rate. Furthermore, we proved the significant influence of the side of implantation, use of hearing aids, and duration of hearing loss in the short- and long-term results in the elderly. CONCLUSION: This study shows that cochlear implantation in the elderly is as safe, useful, and worthwhile as in young adults. Age has a low influence in cochlear implant outcomes; however, we have found the significant influence of the side of implantation, the use of hearing aids, and the duration of hearing loss in the short- and long-term results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Age effect; Cochlear implants; Elderly; Performance; Predictive factor; Profound hearing loss
Authors: Janice Leung; Nae-Yuh Wang; Jennifer D Yeagle; Jill Chinnici; Stephen Bowditch; Howard W Francis; John K Niparko Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2005-12
Authors: Jason A Beyea; Kyle P McMullen; Michael S Harris; Derek M Houston; Jennifer M Martin; Virginia A Bolster; Oliver F Adunka; Aaron C Moberly Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: David S Chen; Danisa M Clarrett; Lingsheng Li; Steve P Bowditch; John K Niparko; Frank R Lin Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Maura K Cosetti; James B Pinkston; Jose M Flores; David R Friedmann; Callie B Jones; J Thomas Roland; Susan B Waltzman Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Jan Löhler; Mario Cebulla; Wafaa Shehata-Dieler; Stefan Volkenstein; Christiane Völter; Leif Erik Walther Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Alexander T Murr; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Emily Buss; English R King; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Matthew M Dedmon; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.970