Delayed Implantation in Congenitally Deaf Children and Adults

Waltzman, Susan B.; Roland, J. Thomas; Cohen, Noel L.

doi:10.1097/00129492-200205000-00018

Cited by 83 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed studies published so far agree about the poorer performances of prelingually deafened adolescents or adults compared to postlingually deafened or early implanted subjects [Bassim et al, 2005;Manrique et al, 1999;Schramm et al, 2002;Snik et al, 1997;Teoh et al, 2004a;Waltzman et al, 2002]. Nevertheless, different degrees of improvement in speech perception scores on closed-set tests have been reported by various studies, while openset speech recognition performances vary from null to a moderate increase after cochlear implantation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The principal source of variability seems to be underlain by the fact that prelingually deafened adolescents or adults constitute a heterogeneous group of subjects who may differ from one another not only for duration of deafness, but also as regards variables which have been recognized as influencing cochlear implantation outcome such as etiology, residual hearing, mode of communication, speech therapy, education, device and strategy [Osberger et al, 1998;Schramm et al, 2002;Teoh et al, 2004a;Waltzman et al, 2002]. However, since the type of device has finally been recognized as not really influencing postimplant outcome [Teoh et al, 2004a] and obsolete strategies have not been used in recent studies, the observed variability in postimplant performances should mainly be attributed to the characteristics of patients 'per se'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of recently published studies report that speech perception scores reach asymptotic levels within 1 year of implantation [Bassim et al, 2005;Fryauf-Bertschy et al, 1997;Manrique et al, 1999;Snik et al, 1997;Teoh et al, 2004a;Waltzman et al, 2002]. This was explained by the limited possibility of neural circuitry to reorganize once the sensitive period of cortical plasticity is finished.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was explained by the limited possibility of neural circuitry to reorganize once the sensitive period of cortical plasticity is finished. Nevertheless, some studies have reported improvement of speech perception scores later than 1 year after cochlear implant use [FryaufBertschy et al, 1997;Manrique et al, 1999;Snik et al, 1997;Waltzman et al, 2002], although no definite conclusion could be drawn due to lack of statistical analysis, small number of subjects included or limited duration of deafness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The outcome of cochlear implantation in patients with deafness of prelingual onset is largely unpredictable due to high individual variability. This study evaluated speech perception performances in a group of 18 prelingually deafened subjects (aged 13–30 years) which was homogeneous with respect to duration of deafness, hearing aid use before cochlear implantation, mode of communication and administration of auditory-oral speech therapy. Word discrimination length, word and sentence identification, phoneme identification and word and sentence recognition were tested before cochlear implantation and at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years of cochlear implant use. Scores on all tests significantly improved after cochlear implantation, although mean values were lower compared to those achieved by postlingually deafened patients. Speech performances on both word and sentence recognition continued to increase over time also beyond 1 year after cochlear implantation. Moreover, scores on sentence recognition tests were significantly higher compared to disyllabic words at 3 years of cochlear implant use. The presence of an auditory input delivered by hearing aids before cochlear implantation associated with auditory-oral therapy and a good level of education may positively influence the cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of whether a child has a hearing loss only or has a disability in addition, there is a relationship between increased age at implantation and poor performance [8] . In this case study, this means that despite the subject's residual hearing during her first years, her age at implantation meant that she had experienced 9 years 6 months with limited aural input.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implantation in a Patient with Kabuki Syndrome

Vesseur

Cillessen²,

Mylanus³

2016

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criteria for cochlear implants are expanding and now include children with disabilities in addition to hearing loss, such as those with Kabuki syndrome (KS). This case report describes language outcomes and changes in the quality of life of a female child with KS after cochlear implantation. The subject had a profound progressive sensorineural hearing loss, cognitive impairments, and other disabilities and communicated using vocalized sounds and the Dutch Sign Language. After cochlear implantation at an age of nine years and three months, the patient displayed no progress in speech production and minimal progress in receptive language development, but she had an increased awareness of the world and an increase in the quality of life.

show abstract

Cochlear Implantation in Prelingually Deafened Adolescents

Zeitler¹,

Anwar²,

Green³

et al. 2012

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To determine the efficacy of cochlear implantation (CI) in prelingually deafened adolescent children and to evaluate predictive variables for successful outcomes.Design: Retrospective medical record review.Participants: Children aged 10 to 17 years with prelingual hearing loss (mean length of deafness, 11.5 years) who received a unilateral CI (mean age at CI, 12.9 years).Intervention: Unilateral CI. Main Outcome Measures: Standard speech perception testing (Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant [CNC]monosyllabic word test and Hearing in Noise [HINT] sentence test) was performed preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively (year 1), and at the last follow-up/end of the study (EOS).Results: There was a highly significant improvement in speech perception scores for both HINT sentence and CNC word testing from the preoperative testing to year For editorial comment see page 93

show abstract

Delayed Implantation in Congenitally Deaf Children and Adults

Abstract: Children and adults with long-term congenital deafness can obtain considerable open set speech understanding after implantation. Length of deafness (age at implantation), length of device use, and mode of communication contribute to outcome.

Cited by 83 publications

References 12 publications

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults

Cochlear Implantation in a Patient with Kabuki Syndrome

Cochlear Implantation in Prelingually Deafened Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About