Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 7;12(4):414-422.
doi: 10.3390/audiolres12040042.

Cochlear Implant Evolving Indications: Our Outcomes in Adult Patients

Affiliations

Cochlear Implant Evolving Indications: Our Outcomes in Adult Patients

Andrea Achena et al. Audiol Res. .

Abstract

Background: The eligibility criteria for cochlear implantation are constantly evolving, following the continuous progress in technology, knowledge about cochlear implant (CI) fitting, and the possibility to preserve residual hearing. Appropriate attention should be given to asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and single-side deafness (SSD) subjects. This study aimed to analyze cochlear implant indications and evaluate the longitudinal performance outcomes for patients with different kinds and degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Methods: A total of 69 adult hearing loss CI recipients were included and divided into four subgroups according to our CI indication criteria. We performed objective and subjective measures, including speech perception analysis in silence and with background noise, comparing the outcomes obtained in the four groups. Results: After cochlear implant surgery, concerning the preimplantation daily listening condition, a significantly improved speech perception score in silence and noise was found in all four groups (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusion: CI could represent an efficient solution for patients with AHL and SSD classes.

Keywords: asymmetric hearing loss (AHL); cochlear implant; evolving indications; single-side deafness (SSD).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Lane H., Bahan B. Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1998;119:297 313. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70070-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hainarosie M., Zainea V., Hainarosie R. The evolution of cochlear implant technology and its clinical relevance. J. Med. Life. 2014;7:1–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. House W.F., Urban J. Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlea in man. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1973;82:504–517. doi: 10.1177/000348947308200408. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clark G.M., Tong Y.C., Martin L.F. A multiple channel cochlear implant: An evaluation using open-set CID sentences. Laryngoscope. 1981;91:628–634. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198104000-00018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Michelson R.P., Shindler R.A. Multichannel cochlear implant: Preliminary results in man. Laryngoscope. 1981;91:38 42. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198101000-00006. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources