Long-term outcomes of children with congenital deafness with more than 15 years of cochlear implant experience

Authors

  • Jorge Humberto Martins Audiologista do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE; Mestre em Ciências da Fala e da Audição, Portugal
  • Marisa Alves Mestre em Ciências da Fala e da Audição; Terapeuta da Fala do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal
  • Daniela Ramos Terapeuta da Fala do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal
  • Helena Alves Terapeuta da Fala no Serviço ORL do Centro Hospitalar de Coimbra, Portugal
  • Conceição Peixoto Médica ORL do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal
  • Susana Andrade Médica ORL do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal
  • Luis Silva Médico Assistente Hospitalar Graduado de ORL do Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal
  • Carlos Ribeiro Director de Serviço de ORL do CHUC, EPE, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34631/sporl.101

Keywords:

cochlear implant, language, children, Outcome assessment

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, the authors aim to investigate if cochlear implant (CI) allows the development of oral communication based on audition and if this is a technology that is safe and reliable at a long-term basis.

Material and Methods: The participants were divided into two groups: group 1: individuals with 15 or more years of CI experience; group 2: individuals with 10 to 14 years of CI experience. Both groups were evaluated with the tests that compose the evaluation protocol developed in the ENT Service of CHUC – Hospital Geral, described under results.

Results: The tonal audiometry results showed statistically significant difference at 250 Hz. The vocal audiometry results showed statistically significant difference at the intensities of 30, 60, 70 and 80 dB SPL. There was no statistically significant difference in the following tests: monosyllables, numbers, sentences, sentences with telephone and vowels. There was statistically significant difference in the following tests: consonants, 100 words, minimal pairs and articulation.

Discussion e Conclusion: The results found show that the CI is a safe, reliable and long term efficient rehabilitation technique. The differences found may be related with the progressive reduction of age at implantation, improvements in the technology and progressive increment in speech and language therapy and special education support.

References

Geers A, Tobey E, Moog J, Brenner C. Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in the preschool years: From elementary grades to high school. International Journal of Audiology, 2008;47:21-30.

Tomblin JB, Barker BA, Spencer LJ, Zhang X, et al. The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48:853-867

Geers AE. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, 2004;130: 634-8.

Blamey P, Sarant J. Speech Perception and language criteria for paediatric cochlear candidature. Audiol Neurootol, 2002;7:114-121.

Clark G. Safety as well as speech and language. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2003; 67(suppl 1):S7-S20

Colletti V, Carner M, Miorelli V, Guida M, et. al. Cochlear implantation at under 12 months: Report on 10 patients. Laryngoscope, 2005;115:445-9

Schauwers K, Gillis S, Daemers K, De Beaukelaer C, et al. Cochlear implantation between 5 and 20 months of age: The onset of babbling and the audiologic outcomes. Otology & Neurotology, 2004;25:263-70

Nicholas JG, Geers AE. Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2007;50:1048-62

Govaerts PJ, De Beukelaer C, Daemers K, Ceulaer De G, et al. Outcome of cochlear implantation at different ages from 0 to 6 years. Otology & Neurotology, 2002;23: 885-90

Dowell RC, Dettman SJ, Blamey PJ, Barker EJ, et al. Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes. Cochlear Implants International, 2002;3(1):1-18

Kaplan DM, Puterman M. Pediatric Cochlear Implants in Prelingual Deafness: Medium and Long.term Outcomes. IMAJ, 2010;12:107-9

Traxler CB. Measuring up to performance standards in reading and mathematics: Achievement of selected deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the national norming of the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 2000;5:337-48

Spencer L, Tomblim B. Evaluating phonological processing skills in children with prelingual deafness who use cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 2008;14:1-20

Jonhson C, Goswami U. Phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading in deaf children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2010;53:237-61

Connor CM, Craig HK, Raudenbush SW, Heavner K, et al. 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;27:628-44

Hayes H, Geers AE, Treiman R, Moog JS. Receptive Vocabulary Development in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Achievement in an Intensive Auditory-Oral Educational Setting. Ear Hear, 2009;30:128-35

Geers AE, Hayes H. Reading, Writing, and Phonological Processing Skills of Adolescents With 10 or More Years of Cochlear Implante Experience. Ear Hear, 2010;32:49-59

Geers AE, Sedey AL. Language and Verbal Reasoning Skills in Adolescents With 10 or More Years of Cochlear Implant Experience. Ear Hear, 2010;32:39-48

Maurer J, Marangos N, Ziegler E. Reability of cochlear implants. Otolaryngol, Head Neck Surg, 2005;132(5):746-50

Martins JH, Januário J, Alves M, Ramos D, et. al. Validation list of monosyllables, numbers and sentences for speech audiometry for Adults. Clínica e Investigação Otorrinolaringologia, 2009;3(1): 54-9

How to Cite

Martins, J. H., Alves, M., Ramos, D., Alves, H., Peixoto, C., Andrade, S., Silva, L., & Ribeiro, C. (2014). Long-term outcomes of children with congenital deafness with more than 15 years of cochlear implant experience. Portuguese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 52(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.34631/sporl.101

Issue

Section

Original Article