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.

Cochlear implantation is a safe technique with a relatively low complication rate; however, certain complications may require specific attention to prevent or correct them.

MCI is highly prevalent in older adults with profound hearing loss. Nevertheless, we observed a low rate of progression to dementia, and cognitive function improved in some individuals with MCI at baseline. These results highlight that cochlear implantation should be strongly considered in profoundly deaf individuals, even those with MCI, who may have a specific subtype of MCI, with a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on neurocognitive functioning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and delayed postcontrast T1-weighted MR imaging (DPI) have been proposed in previous studies to detect residual middle ear cholesteatomas, with varying results. We assessed and compared these 2 techniques in patients with canal wall-up tympanoplasty.