Performance after cochlear implantation: a comparison of children deafened by meningitis and congenitally deaf children

Mitchell, TE; Psarros, Colleen; Pegg, P.; Rennie, M.; Gibson, W. P. R.

doi:10.1258/0022215001903852

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Te st populations described in the literature comprising children implanted before the age of 2 are characterized by a relatively high proportion of individuals with meningitis-induced deafness. Mitchell et al (2000) showed that postoperative speech understanding following meningitis does not differ from that of congenitally deaf cochlear implant recipients. It appears, therefore, that such a comparison is valid.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: a comparative study

Lesinski‐Schiedat¹,

Illg²,

Heermann³

et al. 2004

Cochlear Implants Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: a comparative study

Lesinski‐Schiedat¹,

Illg²,

Heermann³

et al. 2004

Cochlear Implants Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Potential sources include rehabilitative factors such as the age of the child at diagnosis, amplification, habilitation, CI fitting (Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003;Kirk, Miyamoto, Lento et al, 2002;Nicholas & Geers, 2006a) and whether post-implant educational intervention is speechbased or sign-speech based (Connor, Hieber, Arts & Zwolan, 2000;, and whether the child is in a special education or mainstream classroom (Geers, Nicholas & Sedey, 2003). Another set of factors being examined are medical/audiological in nature, including cause of deafness (Mitchell, Psarros, Pegg, Rennie & Gibson, 2000;Bauer, Geers, Brenner, Moog & Smith, 2003;Nikolopoulos, Archbold, & O'Donoghue, 2006), age at onset of deafness (Geers, 2004a), whether better or poorer hearing ear receives the implant (Friedland, Venick & Niparko, 2003;Francis, Yeagle, Bowditch & Niparko, 2005), whether a contralateral hearing aid is used (Holt, Kirk, Eisenberg, Martinez & Campbell, 2005;Ching, Psarros, Hill, Dillon & Incerti, 2001), the CI technology (Geers, Brenner, & Davidson, 2003) and the degree of preimplant hearing available to the child (Nicholas & Geers, 2006b). The impact of all of these factors must be considered in light of child and family characteristics that may affect language development, including level of nonverbal intelligence , motor skills (Horn, Pisoni & Miyamoto, 2006), memory/processing abilities (Pisoni & Cleary, 2003;Dawson, Busby, McKay & Clark, 2002), and demographic characteristics such as the child's gender, family size and parents' education (Stacey, Fortnum, Barton & Summerfield, 2006;Geers, Nicholas & Sedey, 2003).…”

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expected Test Scores for Preschoolers With a Cochlear Implant Who Use Spoken Language

Nicholas

Geers

2008

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The major purpose of this study was to provide information about expected spoken language skills of preschool-aged children who are deaf and who use a cochlear implant. A goal was to provide "benchmarks" against which those skills may be compared, for a given age at implantation. We also examined whether parent-completed checklists of children's language were correlated with results of standardized language tests and whether scores increased linearly with decreasing age-ofimplantation and increasing duration of cochlear implant use.Method-Participants were a nation-wide sample of 76 children who were deaf and orally-educated and who received an implant by 38 months of age. Formal language tests were administered at age 4.5 years. The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (MBCDI) was completed by parents when children were ages 3.5 and 4.5 years.Results-Based on regression analyses, expected test scores for each age at implant are provided for two commonly administered language tests at 4.5 years of age and MBCDI subscale scores at 3.5 and 4.5 years. Concurrent test scores were significantly correlated on all measures. A linear relation was found which predicted increasing test scores with younger ages at implantation for all scales administered.Conclusions-While the expected scores reported here should not be considered as normative data, they are benchmarks which may be useful for evaluating spoken language progress of children with cochlear implants in enrolled in spoken language-based programs.Published literature shows that children who are profoundly deaf and who receive a cochlear implant often achieve spoken language skills much closer to the skills of their hearing peers than previously possible. Levels of spoken language skill previously achieved only occasionally in children who were profoundly deaf and used hearing aids have now become the norm, with higher levels seen in the areas of speech perception (Eisenberg et al., 2006), speech production (Chin, Tsai & Gao, 2003;Flipsen & Colvard, 2006;Horga & Liker, 2006;Tobey, Geers, Brenner, Altuna, & Gabbert, 2003), language (Moog, 2002;Nicholas & Geers, 2006a;2006b), and reading (Geers, 2003;Spencer, Tomblin & Gantz, 1998). Many educators and clinicians working with children who have severe-profound hearing loss are revising educational strategies and expectations based upon the general success facilitated by cochlear implant (CI) devices. Sources of VariabilityPrior to surgery, parents often ask clinicians to describe the spoken language proficiency that may be expected following cochlear implantation. During post-implant habilitation, they may NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript ask whether their child is making expected progress in relation to other children with CIs. Despite the impressive skills achieved by many children with CIs, variability in progress remains a significant concern. The range of observed outcomes adds uncertainty to projecting future progress for ...

show abstract

“…Neste estudo não foi encontrada uma diferença estatisticamente significante quanto ao reconhecimento de palavras e fonemas e no questionário de habilidades auditivas entre o grupo com deficiência auditiva pós-meningite e o grupo com deficiência auditiva de etiologias diversas. Resultados similares quanto a percepção da fala foram relatados em crianças implantadas antes dos 3 anos com deficiência auditiva pós-meningite 12 , para crianças que tiveram meningite antes de 2 anos de idade 11 , quando estes foram comparados com o grupo de deficiência auditiva de outras etiologias.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…A produção de fala deste grupo aparentemente foi melhor, mas não estatisticamente significante quando comparada com os outros dois grupos. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas quanto à percepção e produção de fala 11 . Os resultados da avaliação da percepção da fala em 71 crianças implantadas, divididas em 3 grupos: crianças que receberam o IC com mais de 7 anos, as abaixo de 7 anos e com idade de 3 anos ou menos com deficiência auditiva decorrente de meningite, indicaram melhoras depois de 6 a 12 meses de uso do IC em toda a amostra.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Implantes cocleares em crianças portadoras de deficiência auditiva decorrente de meningite

Bevilácqua

Moret

Filho

et al. 2003

Rev. Bras. Otorrinolaringol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meningite é a principal causa de deficiência auditiva neurossensorial adquirida, o paciente pode apresentar ao mesmo tempo déficit motor, distúrbio visual, distúrbio de linguagem, déficit vestibular, déficit de atenção e incapacidade para a aprendizagem. Caracteristicamente a deficiência auditiva pós-meningite é sensorioneural, profunda, bilateral, simétrica e descendente, mais comum no sexo masculino e em crianças abaixo de 5 anos e traz não só graves implicações quanto ao desenvolvimento social e emocional dos sujeitos por ela afetados, como também sérias alterações na linguagem oral já adquirida e/ou em estágio de aquisição. Objetivo: O trabalho objetiva realizar um estudo comparativo de um grupo de crianças com deficiên-cia auditiva sensorioneural devido a meningite e um grupo de crianças com deficiência auditiva sensorioneural de etiologias diversas, implantadas no período pré-lingual, na faixa etária de 1 ano e 10 meses a 6 anos. Forma de estudo: Coorte transversal. Material e Método: Foram avaliadas 63 crianças com deficiência auditiva neurossensorial profunda bilateral pré-lingual, usuárias de implante coclear multicanal, sendo 25 (40%) do sexo masculino 38 (60%) do sexo feminino. Em 12 casos (19%) a deficiência auditiva foi decorrente da meningite e em 51 casos (81%) de outras etiologias. Todos os indivíduos selecionados foram submetidos a avaliações otorrinolaringológicas e audiológicas clínicas e objetivas. Conclusões: A ocorrência de inserção parcial dos eletrodos foi maior no grupo com deficiên-cia auditiva pós-meningite. Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significantes quanto ao reconhecimento de palavras e fonemas e nos questionários de avaliação das habilidades auditivas (MAIS) e de linguagem (MUSS) entre os grupos estudados. Meni ngitis is the main cause of acquired sensorineural hearing loss in children. The patient may also present motor disorders, visual, vestibular, language and attention deficits as well as inability for learning. Characteristically the hearing loss due to meningitis is bilateral profound sensorineural symmetric and descendent and it is more common in males and in children under 5 years old and it brings severe implications in the emotional, social and development. Aim: To compare the performance of two groups of pre-lingually deaf implanted children, with age varying from 1 year and 10 months to 6 years, with hearing loss due to meningitis and other varied causes. Study design: Transversal cohorte. Material and Method: 63 profoundly deaf implanted children were evaluated, 25 (40%) were male and 38 (60%) were females. In 12 cases (19%) the hearing loss was caused by meningitis and in 51 cases (81%) hearing loss was due to a variety of causes. All participants were submitted to ear nose throat examination and clinical and objective audiological evaluation. Conclusions: the occurrence of partial insertion was higher in the meningitis group. There were no statically significant differences on word and phoneme recognition as well as in the questionnaire for evaluation of t...

show abstract

Performance after cochlear implantation: a comparison of children deafened by meningitis and congenitally deaf children

Cited by 25 publications

References 9 publications

Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: a comparative study

Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: a comparative study

Expected Test Scores for Preschoolers With a Cochlear Implant Who Use Spoken Language

Implantes cocleares em crianças portadoras de deficiência auditiva decorrente de meningite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About