Is cochlear implantation a good treatment method for profoundly deafened elderly?

Figures & data

Figure 1 Results of free field audiometric tests in elderly patients before and after cochlear implantation.

Notes: In panel (A) pure-tone audiogram thresholds are shown. In panel (B) speech recognition test scores measured using the Polish phonetically balanced monosyllabic word test in quiet from recorded material are presented. In panel (B) the plain curve represents normal hearing results as a reference. The plain curve in panel (B) represents normal hearing results as a reference.
Abbreviations: CI, cochlear implantation; FF, free field; PTA, pure-tone average.

Figure 2 Speech perception tests results of Ling’s six sound test, syllable discrimination, monosyllabic and multisyllabic word recognition tests without lip-reading before cochlear implantation, and 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation.

Note: In each test, the improvement over time is easily noted.
Abbreviations: CI, cochlear implantation; m, months.

Figure 3 Results of free field audiometric tests in elderly patients before and after cochlear implantation with regard to the three groups of patients.

Notes: The patients were grouped according to implantation benefits as follows. Group 1: almost no benefits. Group 2: good benefits. Group 3: very good benefits. In panel (A) pure-tone audiogram mean thresholds are shown. In panel (B) speech perception test scores measured using the Polish phonetically balanced monosyllabic word test in quiet from recorded are presented. The plain curve in panel (B) represents normal hearing results as a reference.
Abbreviation: PTA, pure-tone average.