Literature DB >> 23179930

Long term results in late implanted adolescent and adult CI recipients.

Ersilia Bosco1, Maria Nicastri, Deborah Ballantyne, Marika Viccaro, Giovanni Ruoppolo, Alessandra Ionescu Maddalena, Patrizia Mancini.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to assess long-term outcomes of CI in prelingual deafened adolescents and adults, describing, where present, differences in performance, self perceived benefit and highlighting specific characteristics. Twenty-three patients were enrolled: 10 adolescents, 13 young adults. Each patient underwent speech perception/language development, psychological evaluation and structured interviews on self perception concerning CI. 70 % adolescents and 100 % adults used their cochlear implant for most of the day; two adolescents were partial users and one was a non-user. Adolescents' average word recognition and comprehension scores improved respectively from 7 to 29.8 % (p = 0.01) and 3 to 26 % (p = 0.1). Adults' average scores improved significantly from 1.5 to 41.9 % (p = 0.01) and from 18.5 to 52.7% (p = 0.001), respectively. None of the subjects showed a linguistic age adequate to the chronological one: average linguistic age was 7.6 years for adolescents and 19.3 for adults. Structured interviews showed improvement in self-esteem. Adults and most adolescents were fully or moderately satisfied with their implant. Cochlear implantation can be considered a valid option for the rehabilitation of highly motivated and well-selected pre-lingual deafened adolescents and adults. Although there is a substantial variability in both groups of patients and language skills are only marginally influenced by CI, there is still a significant improvement in speech perception. CI was described by both groups as having had a positive impact on their lives; nevertheless adolescents were the ones with a tendency to under-use CI, even those with better hearing outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23179930     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-012-2264-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  39 in total

1.  Cochlear implantation in deaf children and adolescents: effects on family schooling and personal well-being.

Authors:  R Filipo; E Bosco; C Barchetta; P Mancini
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1999-10-05       Impact factor: 1.675

2.  Satisfaction with the cochlear implant of pre- and postlingually deaf adults.

Authors:  S H Lee; C S Kim; H N Kim; L S Kim; M J Huh; T H Cho; Y J Shim
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2000

Review 3.  Learning to hear: plasticity of auditory cortical processing.

Authors:  Johannes C Dahmen; Andrew J King
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 6.627

4.  What can be expected from a late cochlear implantation?

Authors:  Maria-Izabel Kos; Marielle Deriaz; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 1.675

5.  Cochlear implantation in late-implanted adults with prelingual deafness.

Authors:  Tova Most; Hadas Shrem; Ilana Duvdevani
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 1.808

Review 6.  Pediatric cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Patricia J Yoon
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.856

7.  Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: an analysis of post-implant performance.

Authors:  Eytan E David; Jodi M Ostroff; David Shipp; Julian M Nedzelski; Joseph M Chen; Lorne S Parnes; Kim Zimmerman; David Schramm; Christiane Seguin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 8.  Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment in language systems of the brain.

Authors:  Janet F Werker; Richard C Tees
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.038

9.  Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Heather Hayes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Schooling and educational performance in children and adolescents wearing cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ersilia Bosco; Patrizia Mancini; Luciana D'Agosta; Deborah Ballantyne; Roberto Filipo
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2005-09
View more
  6 in total

1.  Late Cochlear Implantation in Early-Deafened Adults: A Detailed Analysis of Auditory and Self-Perceived Benefits.

Authors:  Joke Debruyne; Miranda Janssen; Jan Brokx
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 1.854

2.  Brain responses to musical feature changes in adolescent cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bjørn Petersen; Ethan Weed; Pascale Sandmann; Elvira Brattico; Mads Hansen; Stine Derdau Sørensen; Peter Vuust
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients.

Authors:  Ghizlene Lahlou; Hannah Daoudi; Evelyne Ferrary; Huan Jia; Marion De Bergh; Yann Nguyen; Olivier Sterkers; Isabelle Mosnier
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.241

4.  Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life after Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Long-Term Deafness.

Authors:  Attila Ovari; Lisa Hühnlein; David Nguyen-Dalinger; Daniel Fabian Strüder; Christoph Külkens; Oliver Niclaus; Jens Eduard Meyer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 4.964

5.  Cochlear implant in prelingually deafened oralist adults: speech perception outcomes, subjective benefits and quality of life improvement.

Authors:  F Forli; G Turchetti; G Giuntini; S Bellelli; S Fortunato; L Bruschini; M R Barillari; S Berrettini
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.124

6.  Self-esteem in the deaf who have become cochlear implant users as adults.

Authors:  Joanna Kobosko; W Wiktor Jedrzejczak; Elżbieta Gos; Anna Geremek-Samsonowicz; Maciej Ludwikowski; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.