Cochlear implantation in adolescents with prelinguistic deafness

Arisi, E.; Forti, Stella; Pagani, Davide; Todini, Loredana; Torretta, Sara; Ambrosetti, Umberto; Pignataro, Lorenzo

doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.016

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjects whose scores remained below 30% in the open-set word recognition test are labeled "poor performers" and marked with an asterisk in both Tables 1 and 2. The 30% criterion applied was the same as that by Arisi et al [2010] and Caposecco et al [2012]. If the difference score of an individual subject in Table 2 was ≤5%/≤5 wpm, the result was considered to be stable (no change).…”

Section: Study Objective 1: Changes In Auditory Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Late Cochlear Implantation in Early-Deafened Adults: A Detailed Analysis of Auditory and Self-Perceived Benefits

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: It is known that early-deafened cochlear implant (CI) users are a very heterogeneously performing group. To gain more insight into this population, this study investigated (1) postoperative changes in auditory performance over time based on various outcome measures, focusing on poor performers, (2) self-perceived outcomes, (3) relations between auditory and self-perceived outcomes, and (4) preimplantation factors predicting postoperative outcomes. Methods: Outcomes were assessed prospectively in a group of 27 early-deafened, late-implanted CI users, up to 3 years after implantation. Outcome measures included open-set word and sentence recognition, closed-set word recognition, speech tracking and a questionnaire on self-perceived outcomes. Additionally, the relative influence of 8 preimplantation factors on CI outcome was assessed with linear regression analyses. Results: Significant improvements were found for auditory performance measures and most of the questionnaire domains. Significant changes of the closed-set word test, speech tracking and questionnaire were also found for a subgroup of poor performers. Correlations between auditory and self-perceived outcomes were weak and nonsignificant. Preoperative word recognition and preoperative hearing thresholds, both for the implanted ear, were significant predictors of postoperative outcome in the multivariable regression model, explaining 63.5% of the variation. Conclusions: Outcome measurement in this population should be adjusted to the patients’ individual performance level and include self-perceived benefit. There is still a need for more knowledge regarding predictors of CI outcomes in this group, but the current study suggests the importance of the preoperative performance of the ear to be implanted.

show abstract

Section: Study Objective 1: Changes In Auditory Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Late Cochlear Implantation in Early-Deafened Adults: A Detailed Analysis of Auditory and Self-Perceived Benefits

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, long-term deafness negatively affects post-CI speech perception. Arisi et al [14] reported that CI significantly delayed deafness in poor performing adolescents with prelingual deafness. In our study, long-term deafness was similarly distributed between both groups, and thus was not a significant limiting factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Patients With Prelingual Deafness

Kang

Lee

et al. 2016

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives.To evaluate the factors that limit post-cochlear implantation (CI) speech perception in prelingually deaf children.Methods.Patients with CI were divided into two groups according to Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scores 3 years post-CI: the poor performance group (poor performance group, CAP scores≤4, n=41) and the good performance group (good performance group, CAP scores≥5, n=85). The distribution and contribution of the potential limiting factors related to post-CI speech perception was compared.Results.Perinatal problems, inner ear anomalies, narrow bony cochlear nerve canal (BCNC), and intraoperative problems was significantly higher in the poor performance group than the good performance group (P=0.010, P=0.003, P=0.001, and P=0.045, respectively). The mean number of limiting factors was significantly higher in the poor performance group (1.98±1.04) than the good performance group (1.25±1.11, P=0.001). The odds ratios for perinatal problems and narrow bony cochlear nerve canal in the poor performance group in comparison with the good performance group were 4.878 (95% confidence interval, 0.067 to 0.625; P=0.005) and 4.785 (95% confidence interval, 0.045 to 0.972; P=0.046).Conclusion.This study highlights the comprehensive prediction of speech perception after CI and provides otologic surgeons with useful information for individualized preoperative counseling of CI candidates.

show abstract

“…This difference is likely explained by the postlingual group's late onset or progressive nature of hearing loss and thus accounts for the development of speech and language skills prior to CI. Similarly, the early age at implantation among the prelingual children reflects the well‐defined effectiveness of CI in this patient population 2–6. Delaying implantation among a group of prelingual children might be considered unethical in some instances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Conversely, although earlier studies showed that delayed implantation in prelingual adolescents and adults resulted in limited improvements in speech perception skills, more recent works suggest that modest benefits are possible even in this population. [4][5][6][7] Nonetheless, hearing and language outcomes appear to be inversely correlated to age at implantation among prelingual children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another report revealed that although all children receiving CIs before 6 years of age showed improvements in auditory and speech perception testing, those implanted before age 2 years performed better than the older group 3. Conversely, although earlier studies showed that delayed implantation in prelingual adolescents and adults resulted in limited improvements in speech perception skills, more recent works suggest that modest benefits are possible even in this population 4–7. Nonetheless, hearing and language outcomes appear to be inversely correlated to age at implantation among prelingual children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation