Is deafness etiology important for prediction of functional outcomes in pediatric cochlear implantation?

Varga, Lukáš; Kabátová, Zuzana; Masindova, Ivica; Nechojdomová, Daniela; Gašperíková, Daniela; Klimeš, I; Profant, Milan

doi:10.3109/00016489.2014.894253

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Varga et al, 2014), and/or intracochlear electrode position (e; g. Wanna et al, 2014) may also explain some of the remaining variance. According to Finley et al (2008) a significant portion of variability in word recognition performance can be explained by variability in scalar location and insertion depth of the electrode array.…”

Section: Etiology and Electrode-neuron Interfacementioning

confidence: 97%

“…This high coverage is important since 1.2 to 2.05 per 1000 infants are born with bilateral hearing loss (>40 dB HL). Of these children about 35% suffer from severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (71 -> 95 dB HL) and cannot benefit from conventional hearing aids (Van Kerschaver and Stappaerts, 2011). These infants can be treated with a cochlear implant (CI), a device which partially restores hearing by electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What can we expect of normally-developing children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills?

Wieringen

Wouters

2015

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Etiology and Electrode-neuron Interfacementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we expect of normally-developing children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills?

Wieringen

Wouters

2015

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A clear example of this is hereditary deafness due to connexin mutations [30] or to ototoxic drugs versus sudden sensorineural hearing loss [31] . The importance of etiology was also shown in our sample size, this being important for our SR and SQ result predictions (Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implant Evaluation: Prognosis Estimation by Data Mining System

Guerra-Jiménez¹,

Á²,

Jc³

et al. 2016

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:Prediction of speech recognition (SR) and quality of life (QoL) outcomes after cochlear implantation is one of the most important challenges for otologists. By sifting through very large amounts of data, data mining reveals trends, patterns, and relationships that might otherwise have remained undetected. There are identifiable pre-implantational factors that condition the cochlear implantation outcome. Our objective is to design a data mining system to predict and classify cochlear implant (CI) predictable benefits in terms of SR and QoL in each patient. MATERIALS and METHODS:This is an observational study of CI users for at least one year. Audiological benefits and its relation to QoL are analyzed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Specific Questionnaire (SQ). Sociodemographic and medical variables are processed in SPSS Statistics 19.0, MatLab® and Weka®. Classifiers are designed using the nearest neighbour and decision tree algorithms. Estimators are created by linear logistic regression. RESULTS:A total of 29 patients (mean age, 55.3 years; 52% female and 48% male) including 48% unilateral CI users and 51% bimodal CI users were included in the study. GBI improved by 36 points and SQ by 1.7 (p<0.05). Using Nearest Neighbour (IB1) algorithm for classifiers, interesting attributes were identified for SR and SQ result classification (success rate: 80.7%). Decision tree algorithm (J48) showed influencing variables for GBI (success rate: 81%). Estimators by linear logistic regression analysis disclosed a precision of 85%, 68%, and 71% for SR, GBI, and SQ, respectively. CONCLUSION:Our study proposes a systematized system to classify and estimate SR and QoL improvement based on our initial evaluation to complement decision making and patients' information.

show abstract

“…Word recognition scores were reported in 10 studies. 5,12,[18][19][20][21]23,25,26,31 Different etiologies of hearing loss in non-GJB2-related patients in these studies were analyzed separately. Meta-analysis showed that the difference between GJB2-related deafness and nonsyndromic hearing loss of unknown origin was not statistically significant (total mean difference, 9.15; 95% CI, -3.27 to 21.57; P = .15; Figure 3A).…”

Section: Genetic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Value of GJB2 Mutation Status for Hearing Outcomes of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Abdurehim

Lehmann

Zeitouni

2017

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systematically review and quantify current evidence regarding the association of GJB2 mutation status with outcomes of pediatric cochlear implantation. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for "GJB2,""pediatric hearing loss," and "cochlear implantation" and their synonyms, with no language restrictions, until December 2, 2015. Review Methods Studies were included that investigated the status of GJB2 mutation and its predictive value for outcomes of pediatric cochlear implantation. Speech recognition scores, Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale, Speech Intelligibility Rating, and Categorized Auditory Performance were pooled using weighted mean differences, and a 95% confidence interval. Results Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The differences between GJB2-related deafness and non- GJB2-related deafness due to unidentified causes and other types of genetic deafness without additional disabilities were not statistically significant ( P = .15 and P = .30, respectively); however, the difference between GJB2-related deafness and acquired hearing loss due to environmental etiologies was statistically significant and favored GJB2-related deafness ( P = .03). Conclusion GJB2-related deafness leads to significantly better cochlear implantation outcomes when compared with acquired deafness caused by environmental etiologies. However, GJB2 mutation is not associated with a significantly better prognosis when compared with those whose deafness results from either nonsyndromic hearing loss of unknown origin or other types of genetic mutations in the absence of other neurologic deficits.

show abstract

Is deafness etiology important for prediction of functional outcomes in pediatric cochlear implantation?

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

What can we expect of normally-developing children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills?

What can we expect of normally-developing children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills?

Cochlear Implant Evaluation: Prognosis Estimation by Data Mining System

Predictive Value of GJB2 Mutation Status for Hearing Outcomes of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About