• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

QOL Factors Impact Patient Decision to Undergo Cochlear Implantation

by Linda Kossoff • January 5, 2024

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

CLINICAL QUESTION

What are the barriers and the facilitating factors at play for cochlear implant (CI) candidates who undergo implantation and those who forgo it?

You Might Also Like

  • Cochlear Implantation Has Varying Effect on Tinnitus
  • Best Timing for Second Implant in Pediatric Bilateral Cochlear Implantation
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?
  • Is Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Cost-Effective Compared to Unilateral Cochlear Implantation?
Explore This Issue
December 2023

BOTTOM LINE

Although functional outcome expectations are similar between candidates who elect to receive or forgo CI, the latter have higher baseline CI-specific quality of life (QOL) abilities.

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits that CIs provide for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss who receive limited benefit from hearing amplification, only 6%–10% of potential CI candidates are ever evaluated for a CI implantation. A better understanding of the patient-specific factors underlying the decision to forgo CI is essential in order to meet the needs of the hearing impaired who may benefit from this technology.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative cohort study.

SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

SYNOPSIS: Researchers recruited 43 adult patients undergoing CI evaluations for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss at a single institution. Participants were divided into those electing to proceed with CI surgery (28 patients) and those electing to forgo surgery (15 patients). Participants completed the CI Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-Expectations instrument and were surveyed on factors underlying their decision. Testing showed that pure-tone averages were better and sentence recognition scores higher in the no-CI group. CIQOL Expectation scores were comparable, but CIQOL-35 scores suggested differences in baseline functional ability, with emotional and entertainment domains higher in the no-CI group. The most reported barriers to surgery in the no-CI group were fears about complications, implant cost, and perceived degree of personal hearing handicap. The CI group cited a desire to improve communication, belief that a CI would improve hearing quality and ability to interact, and trust in the CI team to deliver positive results. Study limitations included small sample size.

CITATION: Sturm JJ, Brandner G, Ma C, et al. Why do candidates forgo cochlear implantation? Laryngoscope. 2023;133:3548–3553.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Otology/Neurotology, Otology/Neurotology, Practice Focus Tagged With: cochlear implantsIssue: December 2023

You Might Also Like:

  • Cochlear Implantation Has Varying Effect on Tinnitus
  • Best Timing for Second Implant in Pediatric Bilateral Cochlear Implantation
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?
  • Is Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Cost-Effective Compared to Unilateral Cochlear Implantation?

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939