Marina Davcheva-Chakar1, Emilija Sukarova-Stefanovska2, Valentina Ivanovska1, Vesna Lazarevska3, Ilija Filipche4, Beti Zafirovska5. 1. Department of Audiology, University ENT Clinic, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. 2. Research Center of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology "Georgi D. Efremov", Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. 3. Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation Center, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. 4. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. 5. Institute of Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants (CI) for the rehabilitation of patients with profound or total bilateral sensorineural hypoacusis represent the initial use of electrical fields to provide audibility in cases where the use of sound amplifiers does not provide satisfactory results. AIMS: To compare speech perception performance after cochlear implantation in children with connexin 26-associated deafness with that of a control group of children with deafness of unknown etiology. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. METHODS: During the period from 2006 to, cochlear implantation was performed on 26 children. Eighteen of these children had undergone genetic tests for mutation of the Gap Junction Protein Beta 2 (GJB2) gene. Bi-allelic GJB2 mutations were confirmed in 7 out of 18 examined children. In order to confirm whether genetic factors have influence on speech perception after cochlear implantation, we compared the post-implantation speech performance of seven children with mutations of the GBJ2 (connexin 26) gene with seven other children who had the wild type version of this particular gene. The latter were carefully matched according to the age at cochlear implantation. Speech perception performance was measured before cochlear implantation, and one and two years after implantation. All the patients were arranged in line with the appropriate speech perception category (SPC). Non-parametric tests, Friedman ANOVA and Mann-Whitney's U test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Both groups showed similar improvements in speech perception scores after cochlear implantation. Statistical analysis did not confirm significant differences between the groups 12 and 24 months after cochlear implantation. CONCLUSION: The results obtained in this study showed an absence of apparent distinctions in the scores of speech perception between the two examined groups and therefore might have significant implications in selecting prognostic indicators of speech perception following cochlear implantation.
BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants (CI) for the rehabilitation of patients with profound or total bilateral sensorineural hypoacusis represent the initial use of electrical fields to provide audibility in cases where the use of sound amplifiers does not provide satisfactory results. AIMS: To compare speech perception performance after cochlear implantation in children with connexin 26-associated deafness with that of a control group of children with deafness of unknown etiology. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. METHODS: During the period from 2006 to, cochlear implantation was performed on 26 children. Eighteen of these children had undergone genetic tests for mutation of the Gap Junction Protein Beta 2 (GJB2) gene. Bi-allelic GJB2 mutations were confirmed in 7 out of 18 examined children. In order to confirm whether genetic factors have influence on speech perception after cochlear implantation, we compared the post-implantation speech performance of seven children with mutations of the GBJ2 (connexin 26) gene with seven other children who had the wild type version of this particular gene. The latter were carefully matched according to the age at cochlear implantation. Speech perception performance was measured before cochlear implantation, and one and two years after implantation. All the patients were arranged in line with the appropriate speech perception category (SPC). Non-parametric tests, Friedman ANOVA and Mann-Whitney's U test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Both groups showed similar improvements in speech perception scores after cochlear implantation. Statistical analysis did not confirm significant differences between the groups 12 and 24 months after cochlear implantation. CONCLUSION: The results obtained in this study showed an absence of apparent distinctions in the scores of speech perception between the two examined groups and therefore might have significant implications in selecting prognostic indicators of speech perception following cochlear implantation.
Authors: Maciej Wróbel; Magdalena Magierska-Krzysztoń; Krzysztof Szyfter; Dorota Mietkiewska; Witold Szyfter; Małgorzata Rydzanicz; Krzysztof Szyfter; Michał Karlik Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2008-09
Authors: Joana Rita Gaspar de Barros Martinho Chora; Tiago Daniel Morim Matos; Jorge Humberto Ferreira Martins; Marisa Costa Alves; Susana Margarida Sousa Andrade; Luis Filipe dos Santos Silva; Carlos Alberto dos Reis Ribeiro; Marília Cristina de Sousa Antunes; Maria Graça Monteiro Azevedo Fialho; Maria Helena de Figueiredo Ramos Caria Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Arasa Raj Sinnathuray; Joseph G Toner; Joanne Clarke-Lyttle; Andrea Geddis; Christopher C Patterson; Anne E Hughes Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: X Estivill; P Fortina; S Surrey; R Rabionet; S Melchionda; L D'Agruma; E Mansfield; E Rappaport; N Govea; M Milà; L Zelante; P Gasparini Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-02-07 Impact factor: 79.321