The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of hearing implant (HI) use on quality of life (QoL) and to determine which QoL measure(s) quantify QoL with greater sensitivity in users of different types of HIs. Participants were adult cochlear implant (CI), active middle ear implant (VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE (VSB)), or active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (the BONEBRIDGE (BB)) recipients. Generic QoL and disease-specific QoL were assessed at three intervals: pre-activation, 6 months of device use, and 12 months of device use. 169 participants completed the study (110 CI, 18VSB, and 41BB). CI users’ QoL significantly increased from 0–6 m device use on both the generic- and the disease-specific measures. On some device-specific measures, their QoL also significantly increased between 6 and 12 m device use. VSB users’ QoL significantly increased between all tested intervals with the disease-specific measure but not the generic measure. BB users’ QoL significantly increased from 0–6 m device use on both the generic- and the disease-specific measures. In sum, HI users experienced significant postoperative increases in QoL within their first 12 m of device use, especially when disease-specific measures were used. Disease-specific QoL measures appeared to be more sensitive than their generic counterparts.

Conclusions: Cochlear implantation in the poorer ear of an elderly patient does not predict poorer post-operative audiological, quality-of-life (QoL), and quality of sound results. Objectives: To determine whether choosing the ‘better’ or the ‘poorer’ ear for cochlear implantation impacts performance outcome in an elderly population. Methods: Forty-two out of 73 elderly (≥ 60 years) cochlear implant users with some residual hearing in at least one ear were selected. Three criteria were used to group the patients as ‘better’ or ‘poorer’ ear implanted; (C1) based on previous use of hearing aid, (C2) pre-operative PTA, and (C3) pre-operative speech discrimination. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI) were used to measure QoL and quality of sound, respectively. Results: The mean post-operative PTA was 38.7 ± 7.2 dBHL. In quiet, the mean disyllabic SDS at 65dBSPL was 75.4 ± 18.5, whereas the discrimination of sentences was 95.0% ± 6.9. The mean total GBI score was 30.9 ± 21.8, 92.9% of patients reporting a positive score. The mean HISQUI score was 111.3 ± 36.0, which corresponds to ‘moderate’ sound quality. No significant differences were found between both groups in terms of audiological outcomes, HISQUI scores or GBI scores when considering each of the three criteria.

This study aimed to report quality of life (QoL) scores in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users and to generate guidance for clinicians on using QoL measures to individualize CI counselling and rehabilitation and to increase access to CIs as a mode of rehabilitation. Participants (n = 101) were unilateral CI users with single-sided deafness (SSD; n = 17), asymmetrical hearing loss (AHL; n = 26), or bilateral hearing loss (Uni; n = 58). Generic QoL was assessed via the Health Utilities Index (HUI-3), and disease-specific QoL was assessed via the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ12) and Nijmegen CI Questionnaire (NCIQ) at preimplantation and at 6 and 12 months of CI use. All groups had significantly increased HUI-3 scores at both intervals. The SSD group showed significant benefit on the SSQ12 at visit 3, the AHL group showed significant benefit on the SSQ12 and most NCIQ subdomains at both intervals, and the Uni group showed significant benefit with both tests at both intervals. Unilateral CI recipients demonstrate improved QoL within the first 12 months of device use. Regular assessment with generic and disease-specific questionnaires has the potential to play an important role in personalizing treatment and possibly in increasing access to CI provision.