Alexandra De Kegel1, Leen Maes, Hilde Van Waelvelde, Ingeborg Dhooge. 1. 1Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; 2Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 3Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; and 4Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As deaf children are now implanted at a very early age, the influence of a cochlear implant (CI) on the early motor development of children with a hearing loss becomes relevant. DESIGN: Forty-eight children with a hearing loss were included in this controlled prospective follow-up study and were subdivided into a CI group (n = 23) receiving a CI during the follow-up period and a control group (n = 25) receiving no CI during the follow-up period. All children were assessed around the ages of 6 (T1), 12 (T2), 18 (T3), and 24 (T4) months with a motor test battery consisting of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2), Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) (only at T1 and T2), and Ghent Developmental Balance Test (GDBT) (only at T3 and T4). In addition, collic vestibular-evoked myogenic potential testing was performed in all children. Group differences in PDMS-2 Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ), Fine Motor Quotient, AIMS z score, and GDBT z score were analyzed using Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analysis for repeated measures. RESULTS: For PDMS-2 GMQ, the LMM revealed significant effects for group (p = 0.04), test moment (p < 0.001), and for the interaction between these two factors (p = 0.035). Contrasts indicated that the CI group showed a greater deterioration in PDMS-2 GMQ between T2 and T3 compared with that showed by the control group (p = 0.002). The LMM for PDMS-2 Fine Motor Quotient and AIMS z score showed no significant effects. For GDBT z score, the LMM pointed out significant effects for group (p = 0.013) and test moment (p < 0.001), but no significant interaction between these two factors. Contrasts indicated that the CI group performed significantly weaker than the control group at both test moments (T3 and T4; all p < 0.012) and that both groups showed a significant recovery in GDBTz scores between T3 and T4 (all p < 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the trajectory of gross motor development can be changed in children with a hearing loss after a cochlear implantation. Implanted children show a drop in their gross motor performance within the age range of 6 to 18 months, at which period the majority of the implantations took place, with a tendency of recovery toward the age of 2 years. However, longer follow-up will be necessary to trace whether the implanted children catch up their motor delay in comparison with nonimplanted children with a hearing loss at later age.
OBJECTIVE: As deaf children are now implanted at a very early age, the influence of a cochlear implant (CI) on the early motor development of children with a hearing loss becomes relevant. DESIGN: Forty-eight children with a hearing loss were included in this controlled prospective follow-up study and were subdivided into a CI group (n = 23) receiving a CI during the follow-up period and a control group (n = 25) receiving no CI during the follow-up period. All children were assessed around the ages of 6 (T1), 12 (T2), 18 (T3), and 24 (T4) months with a motor test battery consisting of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2), Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) (only at T1 and T2), and Ghent Developmental Balance Test (GDBT) (only at T3 and T4). In addition, collic vestibular-evoked myogenic potential testing was performed in all children. Group differences in PDMS-2 Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ), Fine Motor Quotient, AIMS z score, and GDBT z score were analyzed using Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analysis for repeated measures. RESULTS: For PDMS-2 GMQ, the LMM revealed significant effects for group (p = 0.04), test moment (p < 0.001), and for the interaction between these two factors (p = 0.035). Contrasts indicated that the CI group showed a greater deterioration in PDMS-2 GMQ between T2 and T3 compared with that showed by the control group (p = 0.002). The LMM for PDMS-2 Fine Motor Quotient and AIMS z score showed no significant effects. For GDBT z score, the LMM pointed out significant effects for group (p = 0.013) and test moment (p < 0.001), but no significant interaction between these two factors. Contrasts indicated that the CI group performed significantly weaker than the control group at both test moments (T3 and T4; all p < 0.012) and that both groups showed a significant recovery in GDBTz scores between T3 and T4 (all p < 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the trajectory of gross motor development can be changed in children with a hearing loss after a cochlear implantation. Implanted children show a drop in their gross motor performance within the age range of 6 to 18 months, at which period the majority of the implantations took place, with a tendency of recovery toward the age of 2 years. However, longer follow-up will be necessary to trace whether the implanted children catch up their motor delay in comparison with nonimplanted children with a hearing loss at later age.
Authors: Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Inge Stegeman; Adriana L Smit; Robert J Stokroos; Nadia Hendrice; Rolien H Free; Bert Maat; Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; E A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Anisha Singh; Hannah Heet; Dana S Guggenheim; Margaret Lim; Bhavika Garg; Matthew Bao; Sherri L Smith; Doug Garrison; Eileen M Raynor; Janet W Lee; Jordan Wrigley; Kristal M Riska Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2022 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Gabrielle R Merchant; Kyli M Schulz; Jessie N Patterson; Denis Fitzpatrick; Kristen L Janky Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2020 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Sarie Martens; Ingeborg Dhooge; Cleo Dhondt; Saartje Vanaudenaerde; Marieke Sucaet; Lotte Rombaut; An Boudewyns; Christian Desloovere; Sebastien Janssens de Varebeke; Anne-Sophie Vinck; Robby Vanspauwen; Dominique Verschueren; Ina Foulon; Charlotte Staelens; Karen Van den Broeck; Claudia De Valck; Naima Deggouj; Nele Lemkens; Lisa Haverbeke; Mieke De Bock; Okan Öz; Frank Declau; Benoit Devroede; Christoph Verhoye; Leen Maes Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Max Gerdsen; Cathérine Jorissen; Daphne Catharina Francisca Pustjens; Janke Roelofke Hof; Vincent Van Rompaey; Raymond Van De Berg; Josine Christine Colette Widdershoven Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Ruth Van Hecke; Frederik J A Deconinck; Jan R Wiersema; Chloe Clauws; Maya Danneels; Ingeborg Dhooge; Laura Leyssens; Hilde Van Waelvelde; Leen Maes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Victor M Peñeñory; Cristina Manresa-Yee; Inmaculada Riquelme; Cesar A Collazos; Habib M Fardoun Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.576