A Scoping Review of Studies Comparing Outcomes for Children With Severe Hearing Loss Using Hearing Aids to Children With Cochlear Implants

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical practice regarding children's candidature for cochlear implantation varies internationally, albeit with a recent global trend toward implanting children with more residual hearing than in the past. The provision of either hearing aids or cochlear implants can influence a wide range of children's outcomes. However, guidance on eligibility and suitability for implantation is often based on a small number of studies and a limited range of speech perception measures. No recent reviews have catalogued what is known about comparative outcomes for children with severe hearing-loss using hearing aids to children using cochlear implants. This article describes the findings of a scoping review that addressed the question "What research has been conducted comparing cochlear implant outcomes to outcomes in children using hearing aids with severe hearing-loss in the better-hearing ear?" The first objective was to catalogue the characteristics of studies pertinent to these children's candidature for cochlear implantation, to inform families, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. The second objective was to identify gaps in the evidence base, to inform future research projects and identify opportunities for evidence synthesis. Design:We included studies comparing separate groups of children using hearing aids to those using cochlear implants and also repeated measures studies comparing outcomes of children with severe hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. We included any outcomes that might feasibly be influenced by the provision of hearing aids or cochlear implants. We searched the electronic databases Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL, for peer-reviewed journal articles with full-texts written in English, published from July 2007 to October 2019. The scoping methodology followed the approach recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute regarding study selection, data extraction, and data presentation.Results: Twenty-one eligible studies were identified, conducted across 11 countries. The majority of children studied had either congenital or prelingual hearing loss, with typical cognitive function, experience of spoken language, and most implanted children used one implant. Speech and language development and speech perception were the most frequently assessed outcomes. However, some aspects of these outcomes were sparsely represented including voice, communication and pragmatic skills, and speech perception in complex background noise. Two studies compared literacy, two sound localization, one quality of life, and one psychosocial outcomes. None compared educational attainment, listening fatigue, balance, tinnitus, or music perception. Conclusions:This scoping review provides a summary of the literature regarding comparative outcomes of children with severe hearingloss using acoustic hearing aids and children using cochlear implants. Notable gaps in knowledge that could be addressed in future research includes children's quality of life, educational attainment, and complex listening and langu...

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

“…However, this study only examined unaided degree of Hl in relation to speech recognition outcomes and did not take into a child's aided access to speech through their HAs. Few studies of comparative outcomes of CHH using HAs and children using CIs include measures beyond speech recognition in quiet and hearing thresholds, omitting measures like speech recognition in noise and more complex language measures (e.g., pragmatics; Killan et al 2022). It is possible that including more complex measures would provide clearer predictions of which children will benefit from a CI.…”

The Audiological Profile and Rehabilitation of Patients with Incomplete Partition Type II and Large Vestibular Aqueducts

“…Although optimizing these outcomes is not the primary goal of hearing rehabilitation, it is critical to the child’s overall quality of life, mental health, social participation, and academic success. 33 - 39 In our study, CIs were applied to patients who were diagnosed and treated between 2000 and 2015, did not benefit from HAs, had progressive hearing loss, developed receptive and expressive language skills, and had severe-profound hearing loss. In addition, CIs were applied to patients whose speech perception was not within the HA thresholds, who could not obtain sufficient gain from the HA in the high-frequency region of their audiogram, and whose threshold for distinguishing speech from the HA was low.…”

An approach designed to fail deaf children and their parents and how to change it

“…Newer research since that 2012 publication confirms and emphasizes that the failure to recommend that a deaf newborn be given access to sign language as soon as deafness is detected puts the child at risk of linguistic deprivation [ 19 ], which is implicated in wide-spread effects on brain development, and which can be permanent and, importantly, are preventable [ 57 , 58 ]. Studies of children with hearing aids who are not taught to sign are far fewer than studies of children with CI who are not taught to sign – and there are so many variables at play, where different studies consider different variables, that comparing studies of the two groups is so complex as to presently be infeasible, if not invalid [ 59 ]. What we can confirm is that effects on brain development are evident in many deaf children with and without cochlear implants who are not taught to sign, and these effects correlate positively with defective or delayed development of memory organization [ 60 ], working memory [ 61 ], executive functions [ 62 , 63 ], sequential processing [ 64 ], concept formation [ 65 ], numeracy abilities [ 66 ], statistical learning [ 67 ], and other neurocognitive skills [ 68 ].…”