Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is age a limiting factor for adaptation to cochlear implant?

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The influence of age on adaptation to cochlear implant (CI) is still being contested in the literature. The aim of this study was twofold. First, hearing outcomes in quiet conditions were compared between CI users implanted over and under the age of 70 years. Second, the effect of the duration of auditory deprivation was investigated. The study design is a retrospective review and the setting is in academic tertiary referral center. One hundred and twenty-one postlingually deafened implanted adults participated in this study. Hearing outcomes were compared between 121 postlingually deafened adults implanted under 40, between 40 and 70, and over 70 years of age. Speech audiometry measurements were taken at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 60 months post-cochlear implantation (pCI), in quiet conditions only. Hearing outcomes were significantly better only at 1 year pCI in the youngest group compared to the two older groups. No significant difference was observed between the middle-aged and eldest subjects at any time. The influence of the severe-to-profound hearing loss (SPHL) duration was investigated and found to be equally distributed among the different age groups. Good hearing outcomes in elderly patients are not secondary to a difference in SPHL duration. Age should not be a limiting factor for cochlear implantation decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Tonal audiometry: mean between 500 and 1000 and 2000 Hz must be less than 85 dB, vocal audiometry must be less than 30 % recognition score at 70 dB, with no ABR peaks at 85 dB.

References

  1. Karinen PJ, Sorri MJ, Valimaa TT et al (2001) Cochlear implant patients and quality of life. Scand Audiol Suppl 30(Suppl. 52):48–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Orabi AA, Mawman D, Al-Zoubi F et al (2006) Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in the elderly: manchester experience over 13 years. Clin Otolaryngol 31:116–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lazard DS, Giraud AL, Gnansia D et al (2012) Understanding the deafened brain: implications for cochlear implant rehabilitation. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 129(2):98–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clark J, Yeagle J, Arbaje A, Lin F et al (2012) Cochlear implant rehabilitation in older adults : literature review and proposal of a conceptual framework. JAGS 60:1936–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Park E, Shipp DB, Chen JM et al (2011) Postlingually deaf Adults odf all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 22(10):637–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haensel J, Ilgner J, Chen YS et al (2005) Speech perception in elderly patients following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 125(12):1272–1276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanchez-Cuadrado I, Lassaletta L, Perez-Mora RM et al (2013) Is there an age limit for cochlear implantation? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 122(4):222–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelsall DC, Shallop JK, Burnelli T (1995) Cochlear Implantation in the elderly. AM J Otol 16(5):609–615

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holden L, Finley C, Firszt J et al (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Nardo W, Anzivino R, Giannantonio S et al (2014) The effects of cochlear implantation on quality of life in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(1):65–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lenarz M, Sönmez H, Joseph G et al (2012) Cochlear implant performance in geriatric patients. Laryngoscope 122(6):1361–1365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F et al (1996) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1:293–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts DS, Lin HW, Herrmann BS et al (2013) Differential cochlear implant outcomes in older adults. The Laryngoscope. 123:1952–1956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH et al (2011) The effects of cochlear implantation on speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 59(3):446–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vermeire K, Brokx JP, Wuyts FL et al (2005) Quality-of-life benefit from cochlear implantation in the elderly. Otol Neurotol 26(2):188–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen DS, Clarrett DM, Li L, Bwoditch SP et al (2013) Cochlear implantation in older adults : long-term analysis of complications and device survival in a consecutive series. Otol Neurotol 34(7):1272–1277

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Buchman CA, Fucci MJ, Luxford WM (1999) Cochlear implants in the geriatric population: benefits outweigh risks. ENT-Ear, Nose Throat J. pp 489–494

  18. Kral A, Eggermont JJ (2007) What’s to lose and what’s to learn: development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity. Brain Res Rev 56(1):259–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lazard D., Vincent C., Venail F., et al. (2012) Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. Plos one. 7(11)

  20. Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D et al (2013) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 18(1):36–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moon IJ, Kim EY, Jeong JO et al (2012) The influence of various factors on the performance of repetition tests in adults with cochlear implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(3):739–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M et al (2013) Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(3):265–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P (2003) Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 114(7):1332–1343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin JS, Jerger JF (2005) Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 42(4 Suppl 2):25–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P (2002) Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport 13(15):1865–1870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Frisina DR, Frisina RD (1997) Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res 106(1–2):95–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Snell KB, Frisina DR (2000) Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 107(3):1615–1626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Friedland DR, Runge-Samuelson C, Baig H et al (2010) Case-control analysis of cochlear implant performance in elderly patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136(5):432–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mosnier I, Bebear JP, Marx M et al (2015) Improvement of cognitive function after cochlear implantation in elderly patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141(5):442–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin FR, Chien WW, Li L, Clarrett DM et al (2012) Cochlear implantation in older adults. Medicine (Baltimore) 91(5):229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zwolan TA, Henion K, Segel P et al (2014) The role of age on cochlear implant performance, use, and health utility: a multicenter clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 35(9):1560–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bodmer D, Shipp DB, Ostroff JM et al (2007) A comparison of postcochlear implantation speech scores in an adult population. Laryngoscope. 117(8):1408–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Pisoni DB, Kirk KI (2005) Audiovisual speech perception in elderly cochlear implant recipients. Laryngoscope 115(10):1887–1894

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Leung J, Wang NY, Yeagle JD et al (2005) Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(12):1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Justine Wathour, Guillaume Lobet and Céline Bugli for their help with statistical analysis. We would also like to thank our audiologists, Suzanne Vanderbemden, Véronique Monteyne, Nadine Jaspers, Guy Dassy and Nathalie Libbrecht, for their availability and professionalism.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENT Department, St Luc’s University Hospital, Université Catholique de Louvain (UcL), Avenue Hippocrate 10, Woluwe-St-Lambert, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Anne-Lise Hiel, Monique Decat & Naïma Deggouj

  2. Audio-Phonological Center, St Luc’s University Hospital, Université Catholique de Louvain (UcL), Brussels, Belgium

    Anne-Lise Hiel, Monique Decat & Naïma Deggouj

  3. Otology, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Jean-Marc Gerard

Authors
  1. Anne-Lise Hiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Marc Gerard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique Decat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naïma Deggouj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Lise Hiel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest or funding to declare.

Additional information

A similar abstract was submitted and accepted at the 29th Politzer Society Meeting. It was presented on 15/11/2013 in Antalya, Turkey, by Dr Anne-Lise Hiel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiel, AL., Gerard, JM., Decat, M. et al. Is age a limiting factor for adaptation to cochlear implant?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2495–2502 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3849-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3849-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation