Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences.

ObjectiveTo test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors.Study DesignRetrospective multi-centre study.MethodsData from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses.ResultsThe significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL.ConclusionsA new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance.

Adult users of unilateral Nucleus CI24 cochlear implants with the SPEAK processing strategy were randomised either to receive a second identical implant in the contralateral ear immediately, or to wait 12 months while they acted as controls for late-emerging benefits of the first implant. Twenty four subjects, twelve from each group, completed the study. Receipt of a second implant led to improvements in self-reported abilities in spatial hearing, quality of hearing, and hearing for speech, but to generally non-significant changes in measures of quality of life. Multivariate analyses showed that positive changes in quality of life were associated with improvements in hearing, but were offset by negative changes associated with worsening tinnitus. Even in a best-case scenario, in which no worsening of tinnitus was assumed to occur, the gain in quality of life was too small to achieve an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio. The most promising strategies for improving the cost-effectiveness of bilateral implantation are to increase effectiveness through enhanced signal processing in binaural processors, and to reduce the cost of implant hardware.

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.

There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.