Literature DB >> 19153846

Long-term follow-up of infants (4-11 months) fitted with cochlear implants.

Liliana Colletti1.   

Abstract

CONCLUSION: In this study the outcomes from several indices (Category of Auditory Performance, CAP; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised), PPVT-R; Test of Reception of Grammar, TROG; and Speech Intellegibility Rating, SIR) in three groups of children with different ages at implantation (from 4 to 36 months) with a follow-up time from 4 to 9 years demonstrate that very early cochlear implantation (<11 months) provides normalization of audio-phonologic parameters with no complications.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of cochlear implants (CIs) in infants who were implanted at < 11 months of age versus children operated at later age (i.e. 12-36 months) and to document whether children who receive a CI below 11 months of age are able to achieve age-appropriate expected spoken language skills, at a follow-up time from 4 to 9 years. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From November 1998 to November 2007, 185 children received CIs and 34 received auditory brainstem implants in our department. The present study focuses on 13 children implanted at ages younger than 12 months (4-11 months; mean, 8.2; SD = 2.4) and fitted with CIs between November 1998 and March 2004. To avoid bias these children were selected from a larger longitudinal cohort of pediatric CI recipients fitted with CIs because they all were implanted with the same cochlear device (Nucleus CI 24 M) during the same period. Postoperatively auditory abilities were evaluated at the latest follow-up, from 4 to 9 years after surgery, with CAP, PPVT-R, TROG, and SIR. The results obtained in this group of 13 children were compared with those obtained in two groups of children implanted at later ages (12-23 and 24-36 months, respectively).
RESULTS: No complication has been observed so far. The highest score of CAP function was achieved in all the three groups but at different intervals from CI activation as function of age at CI implantation. The rate of receptive language growth (PPVT-R) provides distinctive evidence that only the scores of the first group overlap the line of normal-hearing children, whereas the second and third group never reached the values of normal peers even after 9 years of CI use. TROG outcomes clearly indicate that only children from the first group (77%) are in the 76-100 percentile at 5 years follow-up. At 9 years follow-up, 100% of children in the first group, 38% in the second group, and 20% in the third group are in the 76-100 percentile. The SIR outcomes at the 5 years follow-up indicate that none of children was identified within the first two categories, only children from the third group (18%) were identified in category 3, all infants of the first group, 80% of group 2, and 63% of the third group were identified in category 5. At the 9 years follow-up, the number of children from the third group identified in category 3 was reduced to 10%, the second and third groups displayed a slightly higher percentage of children in category 5, but the difference from the values observed at the 5-year follow-up is not significant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19153846     DOI: 10.1080/00016480802495453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol        ISSN: 0001-6489            Impact factor:   1.494


  13 in total

1.  Diagnosis and Management of Congenital Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Michelle M Chen; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Pediatr       Date:  2016-07-08

2.  Music Therapy for Preschool Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Kate Gfeller; Virginia Driscoll; Maura Kenworthy; Tanya Van Voorst
Journal:  Music Ther Perspect       Date:  2011-06

3.  Parental use of multimodal cues in the initiation of joint attention as a function of child hearing status.

Authors:  Allison Gabouer; John Oghalai; Heather Bortfeld
Journal:  Discourse Process       Date:  2020-05-13

4.  Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Barriers to the early cochlear implantation of deaf children.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Lester; Jeffrey D Dawson; Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Pediatric Cochlear Implantation-Why the Delay.

Authors:  Shenal Kothari; Nirnay Kumar Keshree; Salaj Bhatnagar
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-02-27

7.  Word learning in deaf children with cochlear implants: effects of early auditory experience.

Authors:  Derek M Houston; Jessica Stewart; Aaron Moberly; George Hollich; Richard T Miyamoto
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2012-02-23

8.  [Present state of cochlear implant treatment in adults and children].

Authors:  J Maurer
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  A case study assessing the auditory and speech development of four children implanted with cochlear implants by the chronological age of 12 months.

Authors:  Birgit May-Mederake; Wafaa Shehata-Dieler
Journal:  Case Rep Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-20

Review 10.  Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in paediatric patients.

Authors:  F Forli; E Arslan; S Bellelli; S Burdo; P Mancini; A Martini; M Miccoli; N Quaranta; S Berrettini
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.