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
. 2023 Dec;133(12):3548-3553.
doi: 10.1002/lary.30721. Epub 2023 Apr 28.

Why Do Candidates Forgo Cochlear Implantation?

Joshua J Sturm  1 , Gabriel Brandner  1 , Cheng Ma  2 , Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac  1 , Judy R Dubno  1 , Theodore R McRackan  1
Affiliations

Why Do Candidates Forgo Cochlear Implantation?

Joshua J Sturm et al. Laryngoscope. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: Identify barriers and facilitating factors in cochlear implant (CI) utilization by comparing functional measures between CI candidates who undergo or forgo implantation.

Methods: Forty-three participants were separated into two groups: (1) 28 participants who underwent CI and (2) 15 participants who elected not to proceed with CI despite meeting eligibility criteria (no-CI). Prior to implantation, all participants completed the CI Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-Expectations instrument. They were also surveyed on factors contributing to their decision to either undergo or forgo CI. Word and speech recognition were determined using the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) and the AzBio tests, respectively.

Results: CIQOL-Expectations scores were indistinguishable between groups, but there were substantial differences in baseline CIQOL-35 Profile scores. Compared to the CI group, the no-CI group exhibited higher pre-CI scores in the Emotional (Cohen's d [95% CI] = 0.8 [0.1, 1.5]) and Entertainment (Cohen's d [95% CI] = 0.8 [0.1, 1.5]) domains. Survey data revealed that the most commonly reported barriers to pursuing CI in the no-CI cohort were fear of surgical complications (85%), cost associated with implantation (85%), and perception that hearing was not poor enough for CI surgery (85%).

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this study indicate that functional outcome expectations are similar between candidates who elect to receive or forgo CI, yet those who forgo CI have higher baseline CI-specific QOL abilities.

Level of evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:3548-3553, 2023.

Keywords: cochlear implant; hearing loss; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    1. McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):982-990.
    1. Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative Cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518755288.
    1. Zeng FG. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif. 2004;8(1):1-34.
    1. Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world's largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S4-S12.
    1. Looi V, Bluett C, Boisvert I. Referral rates of postlingually deafened adult hearing aid users for a cochlear implant candidacy assessment. Int J Audiol. 2017;56(12):919-925.

LinkOut - more resources