Objective and importance: The candidacy for cochlear implant has changed over time and includes people with lesser degrees of hearing loss. Candidacy is based on the pure-tone audiometry thresholds and aided speech testing. The audiogram does not reflect the actual problems faced by an individual with and without hearing aids. The variability in the actual functional hearing and the pure-tone thresholds makes it difficult for the patients whose audiogram is borderline for cochlear implantation and they are not deriving enough benefit from hearing aids.
Case presentation: Retrospective report of the audiological findings of two patients whose cochlear implant funding was refused based on their audiogram. In both instances, they were not deriving benefit from hearing aids and the pure-tone audiometry results were just outside the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines at 4 kHz.
Conclusions: Cochlear implant candidacy should be individually based and needs to take into account other factors such as work, quality of life, and social impact rather than just adhering to the pure-tone audiometry guidelines. These guidelines should not be considered as strict criteria nor used to deny the benefit of a cochlear implant at the earliest possible opportunity.
Keywords: Audiogram; Cochlear implant candidacy; Cochlear implant case study; Cochlear implants; NICE guidelines; Pure tone audiometry.