Literature DB >> 32784150

A Study of Outcome of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Cochleovestibular Nerve Deficiency.

Senthil Vadivu Arumugam1, Geetha Nair2, Vijaya Krishnan Paramasivan1, Sunil Goyal3, Sathiya Murali1, Mohan Kameswaran1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A cochleovestibular nerve deficiency (CVND) could compromise stimulation of nerve by electrical pulses delivered from a cochlear implant, thereby hindering activity along auditory pathway. The evaluation of children with congenital hearing loss with a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging is presently the investigative modality of choice to diagnose CVND. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with a diagnosis of CVND. The objectives included (1) to study the prevalence of CVND among children with prelingual congenital severe to profound hearing loss; (2) to assess post cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes in children with CVND using categories of auditory performance (CAP), speech intelligibility rating (SIR), and cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs); and (3) to propose a management protocol for these children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CI procedures performed during the study period in children 5 years or younger were included in study. All patients who were older than 5 years or had syndromic associations, multiple disabilities, second side or revision CI were excluded from the study. Children with unilateral cochleovestibular nerve aplasia and all other cases of CVND (type IIa and IIb) were advised to undergo CI on side with more radiologically robust nerve and/or cochlea anatomy. Children with bilateral CVND were included in group A, and age-matched cochlear implant candidates with normal cochleovestibular nerve anatomy were included in group B for statistical comparison of outcomes.
RESULTS: In group A, post CI CAP and SIR, CAEP amplitude and latency at 12 months showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) compared with preoperative values. However, mean score of CAEP latency and amplitude and SIR score was worse for group A compared with group B at 12 months, which was statistically significant (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study supports the fact that CI is a viable option to be offered in children with CVND (type IIa and IIb) for the development of auditory perception and speech.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32784150      PMCID: PMC7419104          DOI: 10.5152/iao.2020.8466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Int Adv Otol        ISSN: 1308-7649            Impact factor:   1.017


  24 in total

1.  Maturation of human central auditory system activity: separating auditory evoked potentials by dipole source modeling.

Authors:  Curtis Ponton; Jos J Eggermont; Deepak Khosla; Betty Kwong; Manuel Don
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Advantages of magnetic resonance imaging over computed tomography in preoperative evaluation of pediatric cochlear implant candidates.

Authors:  David A Parry; Timothy Booth; Peter S Roland
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Of kittens and kids: altered cortical maturation following profound deafness and cochlear implant use.

Authors:  C W Ponton; J J Eggermont
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Cochlear implantation in children with cochlear nerve absence or deficiency.

Authors:  Joe Walter Kutz; Kenneth H Lee; Brandon Isaacson; Timothy N Booth; Melissa H Sweeney; Peter S Roland
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Maturation of the cortical auditory evoked potential in infants and young children.

Authors:  Julia Louise Wunderlich; Barbara Katherine Cone-Wesson; Robert Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Apparent cochlear nerve aplasia: to implant or not to implant?

Authors:  Frank M Warren; Richard H Wiggins; Cache Pitt; H Ric Harnsberger; Clough Shelton
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Characterizing responses from auditory cortex in young people with several years of cochlear implant experience.

Authors:  K A Gordon; S Tanaka; D D E Wong; B C Papsin
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Cochlear implantation in children with cochlear nerve deficiency.

Authors:  Vincenzo Vincenti; Francesca Ormitti; Elisa Ventura; Maurizio Guida; Alessia Piccinini; Enrico Pasanisi
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 1.675

10.  Impact of cochlear nerve deficiency determined using 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging on hearing outcome in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Che-Ming Wu; Li-Ang Lee; Chin-Kuo Chen; Kai-Chieh Chan; Yung-Ting Tsou; Shu-Hang Ng
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  1 in total

1.  Value of Preoperative Imaging Results in Predicting Cochlear Nerve Function in Children Diagnosed With Cochlear Nerve Aplasia Based on Imaging Results.

Authors:  Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Haibo Wang; Zhaomin Fan; Lei Xu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 5.152

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.