Literature DB >> 25170781

Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.

Rosemary Elizabeth Susan Lovett1, Deborah Anne Vickers, Arthur Quentin Summerfield.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Policy-makers have struggled to define the minimum degree of hearing impairment at which children should be offered cochlear implants rather than the less invasive alternative of acoustic hearing aids. This study compared outcomes for children with bilateral cochlear implants and children with bilateral hearing aids, to determine a criterion of candidacy for pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation.
DESIGN: This observational study measured the listening skills of children who received routine audiological care in the United Kingdom. Participants were recruited from hospitals, educational services, and charities. Eligibility criteria included a diagnosis of hearing impairment before 31 months of age and pure-tone thresholds greater than or equal to 50 dB HL at 2 and 4 kHz bilaterally. Seventy-one children participated, aged 46 to 86 months (mean 64 months). Twenty-eight children used bilateral implants provided in a simultaneous surgery; 43 used bilateral digital hearing aids. The two groups of children were demographically similar in variables that predict outcomes for children with hearing impairment. Children's ability to understand speech was measured using closed-set tests of word discrimination in three conditions: in quiet, in pink noise, and in two-talker babble. For each listening test, an actuarial method was used to compare the distribution of scores from children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids. The aim was to calculate the unaided pure-tone average (PTA) hearing level at which a child has odds of 4:1 of a better outcome with implants than with hearing aids. The PTA associated with odds of 4:1 has been used previously to define criteria of candidacy for implantation. The main analyses used a four-frequency PTA (mean of unaided thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz in the better-hearing ear). Additional analyses used a three-frequency PTA (0.5, 1, and 2 kHz) and two-frequency PTA (2 and 4 kHz).
RESULTS: Odds of 4:1 of a better outcome with implants were associated with a four-frequency PTA of 79, 86, and 76 dB HL for tests of word discrimination in quiet, noise, and babble, respectively. The mean of these three estimates is 80 dB HL. It can be difficult to measure a four-frequency PTA in young children, but a two-frequency PTA typically can be measured. Odds of 4:1 were associated with a two-frequency PTA of 83, 92, and 80 dB HL for tests of word discrimination in quiet, noise, and babble, respectively. The mean of these three estimates is 85 dB HL.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with an unaided four-frequency PTA of 80 dB HL or poorer in both ears should be considered candidates for bilateral cochlear implantation. In cases where a four-frequency PTA cannot be measured, the criterion of candidacy should be a two-frequency PTA of 85 dB HL or poorer in both ears. If adopted by policy-makers, these recommendations would expand the provision of cochlear implants among children in England and Wales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25170781     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  13 in total

1.  Effects of Early Acoustic Hearing on Speech Perception and Language for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Rosalie M Uchanski; Jill B Firszt
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  In an era of bilateral funding and changing criteria, when is unilateral cochlear implantation a better option?

Authors:  Olivia Ferguson; Cristina Simões-Franklin; Peter Walshe; Fergal Glynn; Laura Viani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 3.236

Review 3.  Expansion of Audiologic Criteria for Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Christine Brown; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.866

4.  Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Keng Moua; Shelly Godar; Alan Kan; Sara M Misurelli; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Early Bimodal Stimulation Benefits Language Acquisition for Children With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Learning from the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study: summary of 5-year findings and implications.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Harvey Dillon; Greg Leigh; Linda Cupples
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  The Development of a Paediatric Phoneme Discrimination Test for Arabic Phonemic Contrasts.

Authors:  Hanin Rayes; Ghada Al-Malky; Deborah Vickers
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2021-04-07

8.  Simultaneous Assessment of Speech Identification and Spatial Discrimination: A Potential Testing Approach for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users?

Authors:  Jennifer K Bizley; Naomi Elliott; Katherine C Wood; Deborah A Vickers
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Cochlear implants in children: A cross-sectional investigation on the influence of geographic location in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Ahmed A Al-Sayed; Abdulrahman AlSanosi
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  2017 May-Aug

10.  Selection Criteria for Cochlear Implantation in the United Kingdom and Flanders: Toward a Less Restrictive Standard.

Authors:  Tirza F K van der Straaten; Jeroen J Briaire; Deborah Vickers; Peter Paul B M Boermans; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.