Acoustic brainstem implant in a post-meningitis deafened child—Lessons learned

Auditory Brainstem Implants in Children: Results Based on a Review of the Literature

“…Twelve (10.0%) of the patients had associated anatomic deformities, and 15 (12.5%) had other associated deficiencies or disabilities, as presented in Tables 1 and 2 [7,[10][11][12][13] . Among the studies, 13 patients [10,14] were fitted with the Pulsar CI100 ABI ® (Med-El Co., Innsbruck, Austria), 5 patients were fitted with a Concerto ABI ® (Med-El Co., Innsbruck, Austria) [10] , 1 patient received a Nucleus 22 Auditory Brainstem Implant System ® (Cochlear Co., Lane Cove, Australia) [15] , and the other 48 [7,13,14,[16][17][18][19] were fitted with the Nucleus 24 Auditory Brainstem Implant System ® (Cochlear Co., Lane Cove, Australia). The Nucleus 24 and 21 ABI ® were activated using the spectral peak coding (SPEAK) strategy [7,13,14,[16][17][18][19] , and the Pulsar CI100 ABI ® was activated using the continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) technique [5] .…”

“…Colletti et al [1] proposed the following criteria to indicate ABIs in patients of all ages: In patients with ossified cochlea fitted with ABIs, Tan et al [17] considered that despite the better results of the ABI compared with the cochlear implant, there is a higher risk of complications, such as meningitis, hydrocephalus (transient or permanent), balance problems, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, wound seroma, minor infections, transient facial palsy, temporary dysphonia and dysphagia, and headache.…”

“…The programming process in children should follow the same steps as in adults; nevertheless, it requires different strategies, like behavioral observations to the stimulus given and responses with a pictured loudness scale. [17] Colletti et al [1] activated all of the ABIs with the SPEAK approach in the first 6 months; when the patient reached a 'plateau' phase (no improvements in auditory performance in 3 months), the strategy was changed to ACE. That was done based on experience with the technique in cochlear implants, where it allows improvement in open speech sound recognition [1,3] .…”

“…Goffi-Gomez et al [13] and Eisenberg et al [24] used the "Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale" (IT-MAIS) to evaluate hearing capacity and the "Meaningful Use of Speech Scale" (MUSS) to evaluate speech performance. Other authors [10,21] used the "Categories of Auditory Performance" (CAP) scale, using a graduation from 0-7 to [13] 3 Cochlear/cochlear 2 (50%) no auditory responses or sign language nerve malformation at activation Tan 2012 1 1 Cochlear ---1 (100%): improved hearing -et al [17] ossification outcomes; speech discrimination of 15% (audition only) and 60% (audition with lip reading).…”

“…• The tumor itself could cause distortion of the cochlear mechanism • Tumor removal could cause brainstem distress due to traction and compression • The anatomy of the cochlear nuclei may undergo modification due to expansion of the area compressed by the tumor Tan et al [17] described in a case report a patient that had an ABI fitted in an ear and a contralateral cochlear implant in the other simultaneously. This led to auditory confusion, increased numbness of the Table 4.…”