Sequential bilateral cochlear implant: results in children and adolescents

IntroductionThe use of the bilateral cochlear implants can promote the symmetrical development of the central auditory pathways, thus benefiting the development of auditory abilities and improving sound localization and the ability of auditory speech perception in situations of competitive noise.ObjectiveTo evaluate the ability of speech perception in children and adolescents using sequential bilateral cochlear implants, considering the association of these variables: age at surgery, time of device use and interval between surgeries.MethodsA total of 14 individuals between 10 and 16 years of age, who demonstrated surgical indication for the use of sequential bilateral cochlear implants as intervention in the auditory habilitation process, were assessed. The speech perception ability was assessed through sentence lists constructed in the Portuguese language, presented in two situations: in silence, with fixed intensity of 60 dB SPL, and in competitive noise, with a signal-to-noise ratio of +15 dB. The evaluation was performed under the following conditions: unilateral with the first activated cochlear implant, unilateral with the second activated cochlear implant and bilateral with both devices activated.ResultsThe results of the speech perception tests showed better performance in both silence and in noise for the bilateral cochlear implant condition when compared to the 1st cochlear implant and the 2nd cochlear implant alone. A worse result of speech perception was found using the 2nd cochlear implant alone. No statistically significant correlation was found between age at the surgical procedure, interval between surgeries and the time of use of the 2nd cochlear implant, and the auditory speech perception performance for all assessed conditions. The use of a hearing aid prior to the 2nd cochlear implant resulted in benefits for auditory speech perception with the 2nd cochlear implant, both in silence and in noise.ConclusionThe bilateral cochlear implant provided better speech perception in silence and in noise situations when compared to the unilateral cochlear implant, regardless of the interval between surgeries, age at the surgical procedure and the time of use of the 2nd cochlear implant. Speech perception with the 1st cochlear implant was significantly better than with the 2nd cochlear implant, both in silence and in noise. The use of the hearing aid prior to the 2nd cochlear implant influenced speech perception performance with the 2nd cochlear implant, both in silence and in noise.     

Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials in which children received bilateral cochlear implants in sequential operations were conducted to analyze the extent to which bilateral implantation offers benefits on a number of measures. The present investigation was particularly focused on measuring the effects of age at implantation and experience after activation of the second implant on speech perception performance. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty children aged 3 to 13 years were recipients of 2 cochlear implants, received in sequential operations, a minimum of 6 months apart. All children received their first implant before 5 years of age and had acquired speech perception capabilities with the first device. They were divided into 3 age groups on the basis of age at time of second ear implantation: Group I, 3 to 5 years; Group II, 5.1 to 8 years; and Group III, 8.1 to 13 years. Speech perception measures in quiet included the Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT) for Group I, the Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) for Groups II and III, and the Hearing In Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences in quiet for Group III. Speech perception in noise was assessed using the Children's Realistic Intelligibility and Speech Perception (CRISP) test. Testing was performed preoperatively and again postactivation of the second implant at 3, 6, and 12 months (CRISP at 3 and 9 mo) in both the unilateral and bilateral conditions in a repeated-measures study design. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze statistical significance among device configurations and performance over time. SETTING: US Multicenter. RESULTS: Results for speech perception in quiet show that children implanted sequentially acquire open-set speech perception in the second ear relatively quickly (within 6 mo). However, children younger than 8 years do so more rapidly and to a higher level of speech perception ability at 12 months than older children (mean second ear MLNT/LNT scores at 12 months: Group I, 83.9%; range, 71-96%; Group II, 59.5%; range, 40-88%; Group III, 32%; range, 12-56%). The second-ear mean HINT-C score for Group III children remained far less than that of the first ear even after 12 months of device use (44 versus 89%; t, 6.48; p<0.001; critical value, 0.025). Speech intelligibility for spondees in noise was significantly better under bilateral conditions than with either ear alone when all children were analyzed as a single group and for Group III children. At the 9-month test interval, performance in the bilateral configuration was significantly better for all noise conditions (13.2% better for noise at first cochlear implant, 6.8% better for the noise front and noise at second cochlear implant conditions, t=2.32, p=0.024, critical level=0.05 for noise front; t=3.75, p<0.0001, critical level=0.05 for noise at first implant; t=2.73, p = 0.008, critical level=0.05 for noise at second implant side). The bilateral benefit in noise increased with time from 3 to 9 months after activation of the second implant. This bilateral advantage is greatest when noise is directed toward the first implanted ear, indicating that the head shadow effect is the most effective binaural mechanism. The bilateral condition produced small improvements in speech perception in quiet and for individual Group I and Group II patient results in noise that, in view of the relatively small number of subjects tested, do not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children of diverse ages has the potential to improve speech perception abilities in the second implanted ear and to provide access to the use of binaural mechanisms such as the head shadow effect. The improvement unfolds over time and continues to grow during the 6 to 12 months after activation of the second implant. Younger children in this study achieved higher open-set speech perception scores in the second ear, but older children still demonstrate bilateral benefit in noise. Determining the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness that results from such potential capabilities in bilaterally implanted children requires additional study with larger groups of subjects and more prolonged monitoring.     

Should a hearing aid in the contralateral ear be recommended for children with a unilateral cochlear implant?

OBJECTIVES: To predict bimodal benefit before cochlear implantation, we compared the performances of participants with bimodal fitting and with a cochlear implant alone on speech perception tests. METHODS: Twenty-two children with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other (bimodal fitting) were included. Several aided and unaided average hearing thresholds and the aided word recognition score of the hearing aid ear were related to the bimodal benefit on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. Results with bimodal fitting were compared to results with the cochlear implant alone on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No relationship was found between any of the hearing thresholds or the aided phoneme recognition score of the hearing aid ear and the bimodal benefit on the phoneme recognition tests. At the group level, the bimodal scores on the phoneme recognition tests in quiet and in noise were significantly better than the scores with the cochlear implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively available audiometric parameters are not reliable predictors of bimodal benefit in candidates for cochlear implantation. Children with unilateral implants benefit from bimodal fitting on speech tests. This improvement in performance warrants the recommendation of bimodal fitting even when bimodal benefit cannot be predicted.     

1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate speech recognition in quiet and in noise for a group of 12 children, all of whom underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages (range, 1 yr, 8 mo to 9 yr, 6 mo at time of second implant). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Outpatient cochlear implant clinic. PATIENTS: Children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION: Rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech recognition in quiet was evaluated for each ear separately using single-word speech recognition assessments (Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test and Early Speech Perception Test) via recorded presentation. Speech recognition in noise was assessed for each ear separately and in the bilateral condition by obtaining a spondee recognition threshold in the presence of speech-weighted noise presented at 45 dB hearing level. The primary outcome measure for speech recognition in noise assessment was the signal-to-noise ratio for 50% performance, which was calculated by determining the difference between the presentation level of the noise and the presentation level at which the speech recognition threshold was obtained. The results of these assessments were contrasted between children receiving their second cochlear implant before 4 years of age and children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference for speech recognition scores in quiet was obtained between the early-implanted ear and the late-implanted ears for children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age. There was not a statistically significant difference in speech recognition scores in quiet between the early-implanted and late-implanted ears of children receiving their second cochlear before 4 years of age. Both groups of children possessed better speech recognition scores in noise (statistically significant at an alpha = 0.05) in the bilateral condition relative to either unilateral condition. However, there was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition performance in noise and the duration of deafness of the later implanted ear. CONCLUSION: Bilateral cochlear implantation allowed for better speech recognition in noise relative to unilateral performance for a group of 12 children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages. There was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition in noise benefit, which was defined as the difference in performance between the first implanted ear and the bilateral condition and the age at which the second implant was received. Children receiving bilateral cochlear implants younger than 4 years of age achieved better speech recognition in quiet performance for the later implanted ear as compared with children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 year of age.     

United Kingdom national paediatric bilateral project: Demographics and results of localization and speech perception testing

Objectives: To assess longitudinal outcomes in a large and varied population of children receiving bilateral cochlear implants both simultaneously and sequentially.

Methods: This observational non-randomized service evaluation collected localization and speech recognition in noise data from simultaneously and sequentially implanted children at four time points: before bilateral cochlear implants or before the sequential implant, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after bilateral implants. No inclusion criteria were applied, so children with additional difficulties, cochleovestibular anomalies, varying educational placements, 23 different home languages, a full range of outcomes and varying device use were included.

Results: 1001 children were included: 465 implanted simultaneously and 536 sequentially, representing just over 50% of children receiving bilateral implants in the UK in this period. In simultaneously implanted children the median age at implant was 2.1 years; 7% were implanted at less than 1 year of age. In sequentially implanted children the interval between implants ranged from 0.1 to 14.5 years. Children with simultaneous bilateral implants localized better than those with one implant. On average children receiving a second (sequential) cochlear implant showed improvement in localization and listening in background noise after 1 year of bilateral listening. The interval between sequential implants had no effect on localization improvement although a smaller interval gave more improvement in speech recognition in noise. Children with sequential implants on average were able to use their second device to obtain spatial release from masking after 2 years of bilateral listening. Although ranges were large, bilateral cochlear implants on average offered an improvement in localization and speech perception in noise over unilateral implants.

Conclusion: These data represent the diverse population of children with bilateral cochlear implants in the UK from 2010 to 2012. Predictions of outcomes for individual patients are not possible from these data. However, there are no indications to preclude children with long inter-implant interval having the chance of a second cochlear implant.     

Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Prospective Study in Adults

Normal-hearing listeners gain important everyday benefits from having two ears, particularly for determining where sounds come from and for understanding speech in noisy environments. Users of two cochlear implants may have the opportunity to experience some of these bilateral advantages. The primary aim of this study was to document bilateral versus unilateral listening benefit in 15 postlinguistically deafened adults implanted simultaneously with two Harmony^® (HiRes 90K^®) cochlear implants. Speech perception (in quiet and in noise) and localization accuracy were assessed for each ear alone and both ears together. Subjects showed improved sound localization and better speech perception in quiet and in noise when using two implants compared with using one implant alone.     

Effects of bilateral cochlear implants in children: Timing of second surgery and the significance of wearing bilateral cochlear implants in Japan

ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the speech perception with first, second, or bilateral cochlear implants (CI) and to reveal the effects of wearing bilateral CI in children.MethodsAfter reviewing the medical records, a total of 19 children who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation serially between 2012 and 2015 at Kyoto University Hospital (tertiary referral center) were included in this study. All patients had no delay in language development. The study group comprised nine boys and ten girls, and their age ranged from 3 years 8 months to 12 years 5 months when they underwent the tests in this study. The mean and median ages were 8 years 6 months and 9 years 2 months, respectively.We measured the appropriate signal/noise ratio (SNR) to test speech perception of Japanese language in noise by testing the hearing ability of unilateral CI patients with or without noise and by surveying the sound environment in a classroom of a mainstream elementary school.Speech perception in quiet and noise and the left-right localization ability were examined using first, second, or bilateral cochlear implants in all patients.ResultsConsidering the results of hearing ability tests with noise and the SNR of the elementary school classrooms, we decided to use SNR of +10 dB to evaluate the speech perception ability in noise. The speech perception ability using the second CI was significantly worse in patients undergoing second cochlear implantation after 7 years old than in those who underwent surgery before 3.5 years old. Moreover, patients undergoing second cochlear implantation before 7 years old showed significantly better left–right localization of high-frequency sound.ConclusionsSecond cochlear implantation before 7 years old is a critical factor in acquiring beneficial speech perception ability with the second CI and sound localization ability with the bilateral CI.     

Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additional perceptual benefit provided to children through the use of two cochlear implants in comparison to one after 6 to 13 mo experience with sequential bilateral implants. DESIGN: A second cochlear implant was received by 11 children. The principal selection criteria were being age 4 to 15 yr with a bilateral profound hearing loss and being a consistent user of a first implant with a commitment to use of a second implant. Horizontal localization was assessed by using pink noise bursts presented from a 180 degrees , eight-loudspeaker array. Speech perception was assessed by using a four-alternative forced-choice spondee test, with speech presented from in front and adaptive background noise presented from 90 degrees to the left or right. Both tests were completed in the first implant alone and bilateral conditions. A questionnaire measured the pre- to postoperative change in the parent's ratings of the child's performance in specific listening situations. Items were related to speech perception, spatial hearing, or other qualities of hearing. Regular parental reports of device use, attitude and performance were collected. Most subjects were assessed at 6 mo after surgery, with two assessed at 13 mo. RESULTS: The 11 subjects demonstrated a great range of outcomes. For one subject, only anecdotal data were collected. Speech perception testing indicated that when noise was presented ipsilateral to the first implant, 8 of 10 subjects showed a benefit in the bilateral condition. None of the nine subjects tested showed a benefit when noise was contralateral to the first implant. Generally, there was no benefit to localization in the bilateral condition. For eight subjects, postoperative performance ratings were generally higher than preoperative ratings, particularly in the spatial hearing section. Anecdotal reports indicated that most subjects had a negative attitude toward, and gained limited experience with, the second implant alone. The subjects developed a range of speech perception skills, from detection to conversation level. Regarding the use of bilateral implants, attitudes were more positive and device use was consistent for eight subjects, and six parents reported some evidence of improved performance in daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Children over age 4 yr may gain significant additional benefit from a second implant, including improved speech perception in some noise contexts and functional advantages in daily life. There is, however, no evidence from this study to suggest that binaural listening skills, including localization, will develop during the first 6 mo. Furthermore, some children who may be committed users of a first implant may not adapt to or benefit from a second implant during the first 6 mo of device use. Although the factors influencing benefit cannot be clearly identified, limited preoperative auditory experience with the second ear, a delay of years between implants, relatively advanced age, and lack of second-implant-alone experience do not preclude benefit. Continued evaluation of these and additional subjects will clarify the factors that do contribute to benefit. Such information will be vital in helping families of implanted children to make an informed decision regarding a second implant.     

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: development of the primary auditory abilities of bilateral stimulation

The advantages of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were assessed in 29 children with a severe to profound hearing loss. The effect of age at second implantation and the effect of duration of bilateral implant use on the outcomes in speech perception and directional hearing were investigated. The children received their second cochlear implant at an age ranging from 2.8 to 8.5 years. Measurements were carried out preoperatively and postoperatively after 6, 12 and 24 months of bilateral implant use. A matched control group of 9 children with a unilateral implant were also measured over time and were compared with the study group after 12 and 24 months. Speech reception in both quiet and in noise and lateralization were measured. After 24 months, a minimum audible angle task was carried out. Bilateral advantages with regard to speech reception in quiet and in noise were already present after 6 months of bilateral implant use and improved thereafter. After 24 months, speech reception in noise had significantly improved with bilateral implants compared to that of children with a unilateral implant. The percentage of children that could accurately lateralize increased from 57% after 6 months to 83% after 24 months. With regard to the minimum audible angle task, loudspeakers were placed on average at ±42°. Age at second implantation did not have an influence on all outcomes. From the results it can be concluded that the advantages of bilateral hearing occur after sequential bilateral implantation and that age at second implantation does not influence the amount of bilateral advantage. Furthermore, it can be concluded that longer periods of bilateral implant use lead to greater bilateral advantages.     

Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: Audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation

Abstract

Objective: Establish up-to-date evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children. Design: Speech perception results for early-implanted children were compared to children using traditional amplification. Equivalent pure-tone average (PTA) hearing loss for cochlear implant (CI) users was established. Language of early-implanted children was assessed over six years and compared to hearing peers. Study sample: Seventy-eight children using CIs and 62 children using traditional amplification with hearing losses ranging 25–120?dB HL PTA (speech perception study). Thirty-two children who received a CI before 2.5 years of age (language study). Results: Speech perception outcomes suggested that children with a PTA greater than 60?dB HL have a 75% chance of benefit over traditional amplification. More conservative criteria applied to the data suggested that children with PTA greater than 82?dB HL have a 95% chance of benefit. Children implanted under 2.5 years with no significant cognitive deficits made normal language progress but retained a delay approximately equal to their age at implantation. Conclusions: Hearing-impaired children under three years of age may benefit from cochlear implantation if their PTA exceeds 60?dB HL bilaterally. Implantation as young as possible should minimize any language delay resulting from an initial period of auditory deprivation.     

Speech perception benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children and adults: a retrospective analysis.

Objective: To examine speech perception outcomes and determine the impact of length of deafness and time between implants on performance in the sequentially bilateral implanted population. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Forty-three children (age, <18 yr) and 22 adults underwent sequential bilateral implantation with at least 6 months between surgeries. The mean age at the time of the second implant in children was 7.83 years, and mean time between implants was 5.16 years. Five children received the first side implant (C1) below 12 months of age; 16, at 12 to 23 months; 9, between the ages of 24 and 35 months; and 11, at 36 to 59 months; 2 were implanted above the age of 5 years. In adults, mean age at second implant was 46.6 years, and mean time between implants was 5.6 years. INTERVENTION: Sequential implantation with 6 months or more between implantations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech perception tests were performed preoperatively before the second implantation and at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Results revealed significant improvement in the second implanted ear and in the bilateral condition, despite time between implantations or length of deafness; however, age of first-side implantation was a contributing factor to second ear outcome in the pediatric population. CONCLUSION: Sequential bilateral implantation leads to significantly better speech understanding. On average, patients improved, despite length of deafness, time between implants, or age at implantation.     

Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral Ménière's disease

This case study describes a 45-yr-old female with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss due to Ménière's disease. She received her first cochlear implant in the right ear in 2008 and the second cochlear implant in the left ear in 2010. The case study examines the enhancement to speech recognition, particularly in noise, provided by bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition tests were administered prior to obtaining the second implant and at a number of test intervals following activation of the second device. Speech recognition in quiet and noise as well as localization abilities were assessed in several conditions to determine bilateral benefit and performance differences between ears. The results of the speech recognition testing indicated a substantial improvement in the patient's ability to understand speech in noise and her ability to localize sound when using bilateral cochlear implants compared to using a unilateral implant or an implant and a hearing aid. In addition, the patient reported considerable improvement in her ability to communicate in daily life when using bilateral implants versus a unilateral implant. This case suggests that cochlear implantation is a viable option for patients who have lost their hearing to Ménière's disease even when a number of medical treatments and surgical interventions have been performed to control vertigo. In the case presented, bilateral cochlear implantation was necessary for this patient to communicate successfully at home and at work.     

A longitudinal study of the bilateral benefit in children with bilateral cochlear implants

Objective: To study the development of the bilateral benefit in children using bilateral cochlear implants by measurements of speech recognition and sound localization. Design: Bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet, in multi-source noise, and horizontal sound localization was measured at three occasions during a two-year period, without controlling for age or implant experience. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses were performed. Results were compared to cross-sectional data from children with normal hearing. Study sample: Seventy-eight children aged 5.1–11.9 years, with a mean bilateral cochlear implant experience of 3.3 years and a mean age of 7.8 years, at inclusion in the study. Thirty children with normal hearing aged 4.8–9.0 years provided normative data. Results: For children with cochlear implants, bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet was comparable whereas a bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization was found at all three test occasions. Absolute performance was lower than in children with normal hearing. Early bilateral implantation facilitated sound localization. Conclusions: A bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization continues to exist over time for children with bilateral cochlear implants, but no relative improvement is found after three years of bilateral cochlear implant experience.     

Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults using implants versus their peers with normal hearing when these two groups are achieving similar speech perception scores. The study also aimed to compare listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with bilateral cochlear implants when using two implants versus one.

Methods

Eight participants with bilateral cochlear implants and eight with normal hearing aged 10–22 years were included. Using a dual-task paradigm, participants repeated consonant–nucleus–consonant (CNC) words presented in noise and performed a visual matching task. Signal-to-noise ratios were set individually to ensure the word perception task was challenging but manageable for all. Reduced performance on the visual task in the dual-task condition relative to the single-task condition was indicative of the effort expended on the listening task.

Results

The cochlear implant group, when using bilateral implants, expended similar levels of listening effort to the normal hearing group when the two groups were achieving similar speech perception scores. For three individuals with cochlear implants, and the group, listening effort was significantly reduced with bilateral compared to unilateral implants.

Discussion

The similar amount of listening effort expended by the two groups indicated that a higher signal-to-noise ratio overcame limitations in the auditory information received or processed by the participants with implants. This study is the first to objectively compare listening effort using two versus one cochlear implant. The results provide objective evidence that reduced listening effort is a benefit that some individuals gain from bilateral cochlear implants.     

Speech performance and sound localization abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP binaural cochlear implant users

In this prospective study the outcome of the Digisonic? SP Binaural cochlear implant (CI), a device enabling electric stimulation of both cochleae by a single receiver, was evaluated in 14 postlingually deafened adults after 12 months of use. Speech perception was tested using French disyllabic words in quiet and in speech-shaped noise at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Horizontal sound localization in quiet was tested using pink noise coming from 5 loudspeakers, from -90 to +90° along the azimuth. Speech scores in quiet were 76% (±19.5 SD) in the bilateral condition, 62% (±24 SD) for the better ear alone and 43.5% (±27 SD) for the poorer ear alone. Speech scores in noise were 60% (±27.5 SD), 46% (±28 SD) and 28% (±25 SD), respectively, in the same conditions. Statistical analysis showed a significant advantage of the bilateral use in quiet and in noise (p < 0.05 compared to the better ear). Significant spatial perception benefits such as summation effect (p < 0.05), head shadow effect (p < 0.0001) and squelch effect (p < 0.0005) were noted. Sound localization accuracy improved significantly when using the device in the bilateral condition with an average root mean square of 35°. Compared with published outcomes of usual bilateral cochlear implantation, this device could be a valuable alternative to two CIs. Prospective controlled trials, comparing the Digisonic SP Binaural CI with a standard bilateral cochlear implantation are mandatory to evaluate their respective advantages and cost-effectiveness.     

Benefit and predictive factors for speech perception outcomes in pediatric bilateral cochlear implant recipients

IntroductionDespite recent advancement in the prediction of cochlear implant outcome, the benefit of bilateral procedures compared to bimodal stimulation and how we predict speech perception outcomes of sequential bilateral cochlear implant based on bimodal auditory performance in children remain unclear.ObjectivesThis investigation was performed: (1) to determine the benefit of sequential bilateral cochlear implant and (2) to identify the associated factors for the outcome of sequential bilateral cochlear implant.MethodsObservational and retrospective study. We retrospectively analyzed 29 patients with sequential cochlear implant following bimodal-fitting condition. Audiological evaluations were performed; the categories of auditory performance scores, speech perception with monosyllable and disyllables words, and the Korean version of Ling. Audiological evaluations were performed before sequential cochlear implant with the bimodal fitting condition (CI1 + HA) and one year after the sequential cochlear implant with bilateral cochlear implant condition (CI1 + CI2). The good performance group (GP) was defined as follows; 90% or higher in monosyllable and bisyllable tests with auditory-only condition or 20% or higher improvement of the scores with CI1 + CI2. Age at first implantation, inter-implant interval, categories of auditory performance score, and various comorbidities were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.ResultsCompared to the CI1 + HA, CI1 + CI2 provided significant benefit in categories of auditory performance, speech perception, and Korean version of Ling results. Preoperative categories of auditory performance scores were the only associated factor for being GP (odds ratio = 4.38, 95% confidence interval – 95% = 1.07–17.93, p = 0.04).ConclusionsThe children with limited language development in bimodal condition should be considered as the sequential bilateral cochlear implant and preoperative categories of auditory performance score could be used as the predictor in speech perception after sequential cochlear implant.     

Receptive language as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome for prelingually deaf adults

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated outcomes and predictive factors, specifically language skills, for a group of prelingually hearing-impaired adults who received a cochlear implant. Design: Speech perception data, demographic information, and other related variables such as communication mode, residual hearing, and receptive language abilities were explored. Pre- and post-implant speech perception scores were compared and multiple regression analysis was used to identify significant predictive relationships. Study sample: The study included 43 adults with a prelingual onset of hearing loss, who proceeded with cochlear implantation at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Results: The majority of patients experienced benefit from their cochlear implants, with 88% demonstrating significant improvement in speech perception performance. Volunteers achieved better post-operative speech perception scores if they had a shorter duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss, better language skills, and used an exclusively oral communication mode. Conclusions: Although post-operative speech perception performance is significantly poorer for prelingually hearing-impaired adults compared to postlingually hearing-impaired patients, the study group demonstrated significant benefit from their cochlear implants. The variability in post-operative outcomes can be predicted to some extent from the hearing history and language abilities of the individual patient.     

Cochlear-implanted children from homes where English is an additional language: findings from a recent audit in one London centre

Abstract

A 5-year retrospective audit of demographic, audiological, and other records of 147 children implanted at one London centre was conducted. The aim was to detail the number of children implanted, with a specific focus on children from families with English as an additional language (EAL), and to compare these children with children from monolingual English-speaking families on a variety of characteristics known to affect paediatric cochlear implant outcomes. In all, 28% of children were from families where English is an additional language, with 15 different languages recorded. There were no differences between EAL and English-speaking children with respect to age of implantation; bilateral versus unilateral implants or hearing levels in better ear. There were differences between these groups in aetiology, in the occurrence of additional needs, and in educational placements. Information about speech and language outcomes was difficult to gather. Conclusions indicate the need for more detailed record-keeping especially about children's home languages for purposes of planning intervention and for the inclusion of children with EAL in future studies.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate speech understanding in quiet and noise in subjects bilaterally implanted with multi-channel cochlear implants. DESIGN: Nine adults bilaterally implanted with MED-EL implants were included in the study. The subjects were tested in three conditions: with both implants, with the right implant only, and with the left implant only. Speech tests included monosyllables in quiet and sentences in noise (10 dB signal to noise ratio). Speech was presented from the front, and noise was presented from either 90 degrees or 270 degrees azimuth. RESULTS: All subjects reported benefit from bilateral stimulation. Speech scores for all subjects were higher with bilateral than with unilateral stimulation. The average score across subjects for sentence understanding was 31.1 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant ipsilateral to the noise, and 10.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants compared with the cochlear implant contralateral to the noise. The average score for recognition of monosyllabic words was 18.7 percentage points higher with both cochlear implants than with one cochlear implant. All of these differences in average scores were significant at the 5% level. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral cochlear implantation provides a significant benefit in speech understanding in both quiet and noise.     

Cochlear implant and hearing aid: a new approach to optimizing the fitting in this bimodal situation

More and more patients with residual hearing on the contralateral side are becoming candidates for cochlear implants (CI) surgery due to increasing CI. The major benefits of regular binaural hearing are spatial hearing, localization, and signal source discrimination in both quiet and noisy surroundings. In most of the reports, hearing aid fitting was carried out without balancing both the devices. Twelve children and eight adults with residual hearing on the non-operated side were binaurally fitted. Our fitting procedure for the hearing aid was based on the desired sensation level [i/o] method. A loudness scaling was used to adjust the loudness perception monaurally and to balance the volume of both devices. Speech audiometry in quiet and noisy surroundings was conducted both monaurally and in the bimodal mode. The fitting was modified according to the respective test results. In all children and six adults, a measurable gain and/or a subjective improvement of speech perception was achieved. Two adult patients did not accept the new fitting. In seven younger children, loudness scaling was impossible to perform because of age. This was also the case with speech audiometry for two children. A structured bimodal fitting using loudness scaling for both the cochlear implant and the hearing aid results in a subjective and objective amelioration of the patient’s hearing and speech perception.