Postoperative Outcomes With Bimodal Hearing and Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in the Elderly.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
William G Cohen, Ankita Patro, Michael W Canfarotta, Natalie Schauwecker, Jourdan Holder, David S Haynes, Elizabeth L Perkins
{"title":"Postoperative Outcomes With Bimodal Hearing and Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in the Elderly.","authors":"William G Cohen, Ankita Patro, Michael W Canfarotta, Natalie Schauwecker, Jourdan Holder, David S Haynes, Elizabeth L Perkins","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare speech recognition and quality of life outcomes in elderly patients with bimodal hearing and bilateral cochlear implants (CIs).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adults older than 65 years with preoperative AzBio sentences in quiet scores <60% bilaterally who underwent cochlear implantation between 2012 and 2021.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC), AzBio sentences in quiet, and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred fifty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 227 (88.0%) were bimodal hearing, and 31 (12.0%) underwent bilateral cochlear implantation. Bimodal patients were older than bilateral at the time of initial implant [76 (71 to 82) vs 74 (70 to 77), P = 0.03] and had a lower contralateral pure tone average [77 (65 to 90) vs 87 (73 to 100), P = 0.04]. All other preimplant testing was similar. Twelve months after initial implant, those who ultimately pursued a second implant had greater device usage (P = 0.03 ) but similar preoperative audiometric evaluations. At 12 months post-second implant, bilateral CI users had higher bilateral AzBio scores in quiet [87 (77 to 94) vs 77 (58 to 88), P = 0.05] but were otherwise similar to bimodal users. Multivariable regression demonstrated age at first implant as the only predictor of audiometric outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Elderly bilateral CI patients have improved sentence recognition outcomes one year postoperatively compared with elderly bimodal patients. Bilateral CI patients performed similarly after first versus second implant.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare speech recognition and quality of life outcomes in elderly patients with bimodal hearing and bilateral cochlear implants (CIs).

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Tertiary referral center.

Patients: Adults older than 65 years with preoperative AzBio sentences in quiet scores <60% bilaterally who underwent cochlear implantation between 2012 and 2021.

Main outcome measures: Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC), AzBio sentences in quiet, and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) scores.

Results: Two hundred fifty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 227 (88.0%) were bimodal hearing, and 31 (12.0%) underwent bilateral cochlear implantation. Bimodal patients were older than bilateral at the time of initial implant [76 (71 to 82) vs 74 (70 to 77), P = 0.03] and had a lower contralateral pure tone average [77 (65 to 90) vs 87 (73 to 100), P = 0.04]. All other preimplant testing was similar. Twelve months after initial implant, those who ultimately pursued a second implant had greater device usage (P = 0.03 ) but similar preoperative audiometric evaluations. At 12 months post-second implant, bilateral CI users had higher bilateral AzBio scores in quiet [87 (77 to 94) vs 77 (58 to 88), P = 0.05] but were otherwise similar to bimodal users. Multivariable regression demonstrated age at first implant as the only predictor of audiometric outcomes.

Conclusions: Elderly bilateral CI patients have improved sentence recognition outcomes one year postoperatively compared with elderly bimodal patients. Bilateral CI patients performed similarly after first versus second implant.

老年人双模听力和双侧人工耳蜗植入术的术后效果。
目的:比较双侧人工耳蜗(CIs)和双侧耳蜗(CIs)老年患者的语音识别和生活质量。研究设计:回顾性队列。单位:三级转诊中心。患者:年龄大于65岁,术前AzBio句子安静评分的成年人。主要结果测量:辅音-核-辅音(CNC)、AzBio句子安静评分、语音、空间和听力质量量表(SSQ)评分。结果:258例患者符合纳入标准,其中227例(88.0%)为双峰听力,31例(12.0%)行双侧人工耳蜗植入术。双峰患者在初次种植时年龄大于双侧[76 (71 ~ 82)vs 74 (70 ~ 77), P = 0.03],对侧纯音平均值较低[77 (65 ~ 90)vs 87 (73 ~ 100), P = 0.04]。所有其他种植前测试相似。初次植入12个月后,那些最终进行第二次植入的患者器械使用率更高(P = 0.03),但术前听力评估相似。在第二次植入后12个月,双侧CI使用者在安静状态下的双侧AzBio评分更高[87(77至94)vs 77(58至88),P = 0.05],但在其他方面与双侧CI使用者相似。多变量回归表明,首次植入时的年龄是听力测量结果的唯一预测因素。结论:与老年双侧CI患者相比,老年双侧CI患者术后一年的句子识别结果有所改善。双侧CI患者在第一次和第二次植入后的表现相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书