» Articles » PMID: 33815965

Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Overview
Date 2021 Apr 5
PMID 33815965
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose Of Review: This review describes speech perception and language outcomes for children using bimodal hearing (cochlear implant (CI) plus contralateral hearing aid) as compared to children with bilateral CIs and contrasts said findings with the adult literature. There is a lack of clinical evidence driving recommendations for bimodal versus bilateral CI candidacy and as such, clinicians are often unsure about when to recommend a second CI for children with residual acoustic hearing. Thus the goal of this review is to identify scientific information that may influence clinical decision making for pediatric CI candidates with residual acoustic hearing.

Recent Findings: Bilateral CIs are considered standard of care for children with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. For children with aidable acoustic hearing-even in just the low frequencies-an early period of bimodal stimulation has been associated with significantly better speech perception, vocabulary, and language development. HA audibility, however, is generally poorer than that offered by a CI resulting in interaural asymmetry in speech perception, head shadow, as well as brainstem and cortical activity and development. Thus there is a need to optimize "two-eared" hearing while maximizing a child's potential with respect to hearing, speech, and language while ensuring that we limit asymmetrically driven auditory neuroplasticity. A recent large study of bimodal and bilateral CI users suggested that a period of bimodal stimulation was only beneficial for children with a better-ear pure tone average (PTA) ≤ 73 dB HL. This 73-dB-HL cutoff applied even to children who ultimately received bilateral CIs.

Summary: Though we do not yet have definitive guidelines for determining bimodal versus bilateral CI candidacy, there is increasing evidence that 1) bilateral CIs yield superior outcomes for children with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss and, 2) an early period of bimodal stimulation is beneficial for speech perception and language development, but only for children with better-ear PTA ≤ 73 dB HL. For children with residual acoustic hearing, even in just the low-frequency range, rapid sequential bilateral cochlear implantation following a trial period with bimodal stimulation will yield best outcomes for auditory, language, and academic development. Of course, there is also an increasing prevalence of cochlear implantation with acoustic hearing preservation allowing for combined electric and acoustic stimulation even following bilateral implantation.

Citing Articles

State-of-the-Art on the Impact of Bimodal Acoustic Stimulation on Speech Perception in Noise in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Casarella A, Notaro A, Laria C, Serra N, Genovese E, Malesci R Audiol Res. 2024; 14(5):914-927.

PMID: 39452469 PMC: 11504522. DOI: 10.3390/audiolres14050077.


Children using a unilateral cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid: bimodal hearing outcomes when one ear is outside the UK (NICE 2009) audiological criteria for cochlear implantation - a single site case-control study.

Bruce I, Schaefer S, Kluk K, Nichani J, ODriscoll M, Rajai A BMJ Open. 2023; 13(6):e071168.

PMID: 37339839 PMC: 10314481. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071168.


Interactive Effects of Temperament and Family-Related Environmental Confusion on Spoken Language in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

Bowdrie K, Holt R, Houston D J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022; 65(9):3566-3582.

PMID: 35994702 PMC: 9913218. DOI: 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00665.


The Importance of Access to Bilateral Hearing through Cochlear Implants in Children.

Gordon K, Papsin B, Papaioannou V, Cushing S Semin Hear. 2021; 42(4):381-388.

PMID: 34912166 PMC: 8660169. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739371.

References
1.
Carlson M, Driscoll C, Gifford R, Service G, Tombers N, Hughes-Borst B . Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2011; 32(6):962-8. PMC: 4127076. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182204526. View

2.
Tobey E, Thal D, Niparko J, Eisenberg L, Quittner A, Wang N . Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol. 2013; 52(4):219-29. PMC: 3742378. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.759666. View

3.
Boons T, Brokx J, Frijns J, Peeraer L, Philips B, Vermeulen A . Effect of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation on language development. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012; 166(1):28-34. DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.748. View

4.
Kral A, Heid S, Hubka P, Tillein J . Unilateral hearing during development: hemispheric specificity in plastic reorganizations. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013; 7:93. PMC: 3841817. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00093. View

5.
Bruce I, Felton M, Lockley M, Melling C, Lloyd S, Freeman S . Hearing preservation cochlear implantation in adolescents. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35(9):1552-9. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000542. View