-
Meta analysis of clinical efficacy of cochlear implant in elderly patients with postlingual deafness
- LI Shiyun, XIE Yan, PAN Jiayu, CHEN Meixin, LONG Dan, ZHANG Chunlin
-
Journal of Otolaryngology and Ophthalmology of Shandong University. 2026, 40(3):
20-30.
doi:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2023.524
-
Abstract
(
23 )
PDF (7353KB)
(
11
)
Save
-
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
Objective Evaluate the impact of cochlear implant on hearing rehabilitation and quality of life in elderly patients with postlingual deafness. Methods Search was conducted in the PubMed, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang data and VIP databases from 2000 to 2023. Studies on the postoperative rehabilitation effects of cochlear implantation in the elderly group(≥60 years old)and the young control group(<60 years old)with postlingual deafness, and last include literature that meets the standards and extract data. After all these steps, Meta analysis was conducted on the elderly group before and after surgery, as well as the elderly group and the year group control group, to evaluate the hearing rehabilitation and its impact on quality of life after cochlear implantation. Results A total of 14 literature were included in this study, and corresponding literature was included for Meta-analysis based on different analysis indicators. After cochlear implantation in elderly patients with postlingual deafness, compared to before surgery, in terms of word recognition rate [SMD=2.20, 95%CI(1.73, 2.67)], sentence recognition rate in quiet environment[SMD=1.63, 95%CI(1.37, 1.89)], sentencerecognition rate in noisy environment [MD=38.91, 95%CI(33.04, 44.78)], and auditory performance [MD=2.81, 95%CI(2.72, 2.91)], there were significant improvements compared to preoperative results,and these differences are statistically significant(all P<0.001). The word recognition rate [SMD=-0.59, 95%CI(-0.81, -0.36)], auditory Performance [MD=2.81, 95%CI(2.72, 2.91)] and sentence recognition rate in a quiet environment [SMD=-0.32, 95%CI(-0.57, -0.07)] after cochlear implantation in elderly patients with postlingual deafness were lower than those in the young control group, and the differences were statistically significant(all P<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in sentence recognition rate [MD=-6.94, 95%CI(-14.60, 0.71)] and pure tone hearing threshold test [MD=1.35, 95%CI(-8.55, 11.25)] in noisy environment compared to the control group patients. In terms of quality of life, there was no statistically significant difference in the total score of the Glasgow Benefit Scale [MD=-3.12, 95%CI(-22.89, 16.66, P>0.05)] between the elderly group and the control group. Conclusion Cochlear implantation can improve postoperative hearing ability in elderly patients with postlingual deafness. In terms of sentence recognition and quality of life scoring in noisy environments, similar postoperative rehabilitation effects can be achieved as young patients. However, the effectiveness of aural rehabilitation in terms of word recognition rate, sentence recognition rate in quiet environments, and auditory performance is lower than that of young patients.