» Articles » PMID: 36791798

Clinical and Social Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Older Prelinguals

Overview
Journal J Audiol Otol
Date 2023 Feb 15
PMID 36791798
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objectives: Cochlear implantation in late implanted prelinguals necessitates a complex decision-making process for clinicians and patients due to the uncertainty of achieving adequate benefit in auditory and speech perception. This study longitudinally evaluated clinical and social outcomes of prelingually deaf children with implantation in their late childhood. Subjects and.

Methods: A total of 113 (49 females and 64 males) participants, with an age range of 5-15 years, were assessed for the pre-implant parameters such as hearing loss etiology, aided responses, anatomical aspects, and psychological evaluation. The Category of Auditory Performance, Speech Awareness Threshold, Speech Reception Threshold, and Speech Discrimination Score were administered to assess the patient's auditory skills. Further, the Speech Intelligibility Rating scale was administered to evaluate the patient's speech intelligibility at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post-surgery. Subjectively perceived benefits were evaluated using the satisfaction rating scale and a questionnaire.

Results: The statistical results showed a significant impact of cochlear implantation in all domains. Positive impact and improvement post-implantation were noted in all the spheres, including auditory, linguistic, social, and educational.

Conclusions: The study highlighted that the outcomes of a cochlear implant at a later age might not parallel with the implantation at a younger age. However, this still provides measurable benefits even after a longer period of auditory deprivation.

Citing Articles

Current Issues With Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.

Tan D, Fujiwara R, Lee K J Audiol Otol. 2024; 28(2):79-87.

PMID: 38695052 PMC: 11065545. DOI: 10.7874/jao.2024.00073.


Comparison of Speech Perception Performance According to Prosody Change Between People With Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implant Users.

Kim E, Seol H J Audiol Otol. 2023; 28(2):119-125.

PMID: 38052522 PMC: 11065548. DOI: 10.7874/jao.2023.00234.

References
1.
Dowell R, Dettman S, Blamey P, Barker E, Clark G . Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes. Cochlear Implants Int. 2008; 3(1):1-18. DOI: 10.1179/cim.2002.3.1.1. View

2.
Marazita M, Ploughman L, Rawlings B, Remington E, Arnos K, Nance W . Genetic epidemiological studies of early-onset deafness in the U.S. school-age population. Am J Med Genet. 1993; 46(5):486-91. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.1320460504. View

3.
Panda S, Sikka K, Singh V, Agarwal S, Kumar R, Thakar A . Comprehensive Analysis of Factors Leading to Poor Performance in Prelingual Cochlear Implant Recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2019; 40(6):754-760. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002237. View

4.
Ching T, Dillon H, Day J, Crowe K, Close L, Chisholm K . Early language outcomes of children with cochlear implants: interim findings of the NAL study on longitudinal outcomes of children with hearing impairment. Cochlear Implants Int. 2008; 10 Suppl 1:28-32. PMC: 3579664. DOI: 10.1179/cim.2009.10.Supplement-1.28. View

5.
Connor C, Craig H, Raudenbush S, Heavner K, Zwolan T . The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation?. Ear Hear. 2006; 27(6):628-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000240640.59205.42. View