Nikul Amin1, Priya Sethukumar1, Irumee Pai2, Kaukab Rajput3, Robert Nash1,3. 1. a Department of Paediatric Otolaryngology , Great Ormond Street Hospital , London , UK. 2. b Hearing Implant Team, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 3. c Cochlear Implant Department , Great Ormond Street Hospital , London , UK.
Abstract
Objective: CHARGE syndrome presents with a collection of congenital anomalies affecting multiple organs. Ear and temporal bone anomalies, including hearing loss are highly prevalent. We present an aid to management of this challenging condition and report the strategies and outcomes of cochlear implantation. Methods: Systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov was performed up to 21/10/2018 The review and meta-analysis of studies were performed according to the PRISMA statement. Patient demographics, comorbidity, anatomical factors, details of cochlear implantation and audiological outcome were extracted and summarized. Anatomical and surgical factors were evaluated by meta-analysis. Audiological outcomes reported were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. All statistics were calculated with SPSS v23.0 (IBM, New York, USA). Results: Thirty-one studies reported 165 cochlear implants in 156 patients with CHARGE syndrome. Temporal bone and facial nerve anomalies were common. Discussion: The assessment and management of patients with CHARGE syndrome undergoing cochlear implantation is challenging. Outcomes may be affected by cochlear nerve deficiency, inner ear anomalies, and developmental delay. Surgery is almost invariably complicated by abnormal anatomy, and increased incidence of complications. Conclusion: A careful, case-by-case assessment of an individual's requirements within a multi-disciplinary setup is essential for achieving the best possible outcome.
Objective: CHARGE syndrome presents with a collection of congenital anomalies affecting multiple organs. Ear and temporal bone anomalies, including hearing loss are highly prevalent. We present an aid to management of this challenging condition and report the strategies and outcomes of cochlear implantation. Methods: Systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov was performed up to 21/10/2018 The review and meta-analysis of studies were performed according to the PRISMA statement. Patient demographics, comorbidity, anatomical factors, details of cochlear implantation and audiological outcome were extracted and summarized. Anatomical and surgical factors were evaluated by meta-analysis. Audiological outcomes reported were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. All statistics were calculated with SPSS v23.0 (IBM, New York, USA). Results: Thirty-one studies reported 165 cochlear implants in 156 patients with CHARGE syndrome. Temporal bone and facial nerve anomalies were common. Discussion: The assessment and management of patients with CHARGE syndrome undergoing cochlear implantation is challenging. Outcomes may be affected by cochlear nerve deficiency, inner ear anomalies, and developmental delay. Surgery is almost invariably complicated by abnormal anatomy, and increased incidence of complications. Conclusion: A careful, case-by-case assessment of an individual's requirements within a multi-disciplinary setup is essential for achieving the best possible outcome.