Current demographic and auditory profiles of adult cochlear implant candidates and factors affecting uptake

Yael Henkin, Yisgav Shapira, Yifat Yaar Soffer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Despite growth of CI and widening of implantation criteria, penetration rates remain low and the clinical profile of adult CI candidates has not substantially changed. This study evaluated the demographic and auditory profiles of current adult CI candidates and identified factors affecting CI uptake. Design: Preoperative data from patients who underwent CI candidacy evaluation between 2016–2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Data included demographics, medical reports, audiological results, and reasons for not pursuing implantation. Comparisons between candidates who pursued implantation and those who did not were performed. Study Sample: Ninety-five candidates (54 females), average age 52years. Results: Most candidates exhibited post-lingual bilateral hearing loss with mean unaided PTA4 of 105dBHL and monosyllabic word score of 26%. Forty-nine candidates were implanted, and the main reason for not pursuing CI was candidates’ reluctance. Candidates that pursued CI were mostly younger females with poorer unaided PTA4. Age was the only significant predictor of CI uptake. Conclusions: While current candidates demonstrated greater demographic diversity and better speech perception compared to previous findings, unaided thresholds are still within the profound range. Our findings indicate that eligible candidates face barriers to the utilisation of CI, some of which are modifiable by means of updated candidacy protocols.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)483-489
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Audiology
Volume61
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2022

Keywords

  • CI uptake
  • Cochlear implants (CI)
  • adults auditory profile
  • implant candidacy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Current demographic and auditory profiles of adult cochlear implant candidates and factors affecting uptake'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this