Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences.

ObjectiveTo test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors.Study DesignRetrospective multi-centre study.MethodsData from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses.ResultsThe significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL.ConclusionsA new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance.

A model of auditory performance and a model of ganglion cell survival in postlinguistically deafened adult cochlear implant users are suggested to describe the effects of aetiology, duration of deafness, age at implantation, age at onset of deafness, and duration of implant use. The models were compared with published data and a composite data set including 808 implant users. Qualitative agreement with the model of auditory performance was found. Duration of deafness had a strong negative effect on performance. Age at implantation had a slight negative effect on performance, increasing after age 60 years. Age at onset of deafness had little effect on performance up to age 60. Duration of implant use had a positive effect on performance. Aetiology had a relatively weak effect on performance.

Recent work suggests that once the auditory cortex of deaf persons has been reorganized by cross-modal plasticity, it can no longer respond to signals from a cochlear implant (CI) installed subsequently. To further examine this issue, we compared the evoked potentials involved in the processing of visual stimuli between CI users and hearing controls. The stimuli were concentric circles replaced by a different overlapping shape, inducing a shape transformation, known to activate the ventral visual pathway in human adults. All CI users had their device implanted for >1 year, but obtained different levels of auditory performance following training to establish language comprehension. Seven of the 13 patients showed good capacities for speech recognition with the CI (good performers) while the six others demonstrated poor speech recognition abilities (poor performers). The evoked potentials of all patients showed larger amplitudes, with different distributions of scalp activations between the two groups. The poor performers exhibited broader, anteriorly distributed, high P2 amplitudes over the cortex whereas the good performers showed significantly higher P2 amplitudes over visual occipital areas. These results suggest the existence of a profound cross-modal reorganization in the poor performers and an intramodal reorganization in the good performers. We interpret these data on the basis of enhanced audiovisual coupling as the key to a long-term functional improvement in speech discrimination in CI users.

This study examined receptive and expressive vocabulary and grammar achievement of French-speaking children (n = 27) who received a cochlear implant (CI) between the age of 1 and 2. Standardized measures of language achievement were administered and the language levels attained by children with CIs were compared with that of the normative sample of same-age hearing peers for each measure. As a group, children exhibited language levels within normal limits in all standardized language measures. Examination of individual patterns revealed four different language profiles ranging from normal language levels in all domains to general language delay. Half the participants displayed language levels on par with similar-age peers at the word level; less than half the children obtained average performance at the sentence level. In three of these profiles, comprehension of sentences was impaired. Moreover, the age at implantation was not associated with language achievement. Findings suggest that receiving a CI between the age of 1 and 2 years does not ensure that language abilities will be within normal limits after up to 6 years of experience with the implant.

We recommend early cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral profound deafness secondary to meningitis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare speech perception outcomes between bilateral implantation (cochlear implants [CIs]) and bimodal rehabilitation (one CI on one side plus one hearing aid [HA] on the other side) and to explore the clinical factors that may cause asymmetric performances in speech intelligibility between the two ears in case of bilateral implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects becoming CI/CI) was possible from this dataset. Further analyses were conducted on the CI/CI subgroup to investigate a number of factors, such as implantation side, duration of hearing loss, amount of residual hearing, and use of HAs that may explain asymmetric performances of this subgroup. RESULTS: Intelligibility ranked scores in quiet and in noise were significantly greater with both CI/CI and CI/HA than with a CI-alone group, and improvement with CI/CI (+11% and +16% in quiet and in noise, respectively) was significantly better than with CI/HA (+6% and +9% in quiet and in noise, respectively). From the CI/HA group, only subjects with ranked preoperative aided speech scores >60% performed as well as CI/CI participants. Furthermore, CI/CI subjects displayed significantly lower preoperative aided speech scores on average compared with that displayed by CI/HA subjects. Routine clinical data available from the present database did not explain the asymmetrical results of bilateral implantation. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study, based on basic speech audiometry (no lateralization cues), indicates that, on average, a second CI is likely to provide slightly better postoperative speech outcome than an additional HA for people with very low preoperative performance. These results may be taken into consideration to refine surgical indications for CIs. Design: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects bec...

No abstract