/Objectives: Cochlear implant (CI) candidacy has expanded beyond traditional bilateral hearing loss (HL) to include single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), yet baseline differences in speech recognition and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between these groups-bilateral HL, SSD, and AHL-remain poorly characterized....
Clinicians evaluating outcomes for expanded-indication CI candidates (single-sided deafness, asymmetric hearing loss) should not benchmark them against traditional bilateral candidates, as baseline characteristics differ significantly.
As cochlear implant indications continue to expand, understanding baseline differences between candidate groups is essential for accurate outcome benchmarking and equitable candidacy counseling.
- 01Study compared baseline profiles of traditional bilateral CI candidates vs. expanded-indication candidates (SSD, asymmetric HL).
- 02Expanded-indication candidates differ meaningfully from traditional bilateral candidates at baseline.
- 03Findings caution against direct outcome comparisons across these distinct patient groups.
- 04Published in Journal of Clinical Medicine.
- 05Relevant to CI programs adapting protocols for growing expanded-indication populations.
Baseline characteristics differ significantly between traditional bilateral cochlear implant candidates and expanded-indication candidates (SSD and asymmetric hearing loss).
studysupported- PMID
- 42452529
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcm15135068.
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Publication type
- research_article
- Evidence level
- 2b
- Population
- Cochlear implant candidates grouped by traditional bilateral indications versus expanded indications (single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss)
- Intervention
- Expanded cochlear implant candidacy criteria (single-sided deafness, asymmetric hearing loss)
- Comparator
- Traditional bilateral cochlear implant candidacy criteria
Primary outcomes
Baseline audiological and demographic characteristics across candidacy groups