Cochlear implantation in the very elderly: Longitudinal assessment of device use and outcomes
Rattachement africain : fr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation (CI) is an option for severe to profound hearing loss when hearing aids are ineffective. This study aimed to evaluate its relevance in individuals over 80 by assessing long-term CI use and audiological outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study including 29 patients over 80years old who received their first CI between January 2012 and December 2021 with data recorded until December 2024. Annual rates of users and non-users, audiometric test results, and pre- and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age at implantation was 82.8, and the mean duration of CI usage was 4.9years. The percentage of patients still using their implant was 100%, 93%, 83%%, 76% and 75% at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5years respectively. This number dropped to 33% 8years after the surgery. The main reasons for discontinuation were loss of autonomy and lack of benefit. Audiometric results showed improvement in mean pure-tone audiometry thresholds and free-field speech audiometry. Minor complications occurred in 24% of cases, while severe complications occurred in 13%. CONCLUSION: CI is a viable option for patients over 80years old with severe to profound hearing loss. However, given the progressive decline of usage after implantation in this age group, a detailed cost-benefit analysis could provide valuable insight into its indication for this population.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cochlear implantation in the very elderly: Longitudinal assessment of device use and outcomes
- Date Crossref
- 01/05/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.