Considerations for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Unilateral or Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Assessment, Device Fitting, and Habilitation

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Greaver ◽  
Hannah Eskridge ◽  
Holly F. B. Teagle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Loss Assessment ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

Purpose The purpose of this clinical report is to present case studies of children who are nontraditional candidates for cochlear implantation because they have significant residual hearing in 1 ear and to describe outcomes and considerations for their audiological management and habilitation. Method Case information is presented for 5 children with profound hearing loss in 1 ear and normal or mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the opposite ear and who have undergone unilateral cochlear implantation. Pre- and postoperative assessments were performed per typical clinic routines with modifications described. Postimplant habilitation was customized for each recipient using a combination of traditional methods, newer technologies, and commercial materials. Results The 5 children included in this report are consistent users of their cochlear implants and demonstrate speech recognition in the implanted ear when isolated from the better hearing ear. Conclusions Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation are evolving. Children with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss who have traditionally not been considered candidates for cochlear implantation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Audiological management of these recipients is not vastly different compared with children who are traditional cochlear implant recipients. Assessment and habilitation techniques must be modified to isolate the implanted ear to obtain accurate results and to provide meaningful therapeutic intervention.

scholarly journals Subjective Benefits of Bimodal Listening in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Asymmetric Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 162 (6) ◽  
pp. 933-941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Thompson ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Meredith A. Rooth ◽  
English R. King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Academic Center ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

Objective To investigate the influence of cochlear implant (CI) use on subjective benefits in quality of life in cases of asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Study Design Prospective clinical trial. Setting Tertiary academic center. Subjects and Methods Subjects included CI recipients with AHL (n = 20), defined as moderate-to-profound hearing loss in the affected ear and mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the contralateral ear. Quality of life was assessed with the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) pragmatic subscales, which assess binaural benefits. Subjective benefit on the pragmatic subscales was compared to word recognition in quiet and spatial hearing abilities (ie, masked sentence recognition and localization). Results Subjects demonstrated an early, significant improvement ( P < .01) in abilities with the CI as compared to preoperative abilities on the SSQ pragmatic subscales by the 1-month interval. Perceived abilities were either maintained or continued to improve over the study period. There were no significant correlations between results on the Speech in Quiet subscale and word recognition in quiet, the Speech in Speech Contexts subscale and masked sentence recognition, or the Localization subscale and sound field localization. Conclusions CI recipients with AHL report a significant improvement in quality of life as measured by the SSQ pragmatic subscales over preoperative abilities. Reported improvements are observed as early as 1 month postactivation, which likely reflect the binaural benefits of listening with bimodal stimulation (CI and contralateral hearing aid). The SSQ pragmatic subscales may provide a more in-depth insight into CI recipient experience as compared to behavioral sound field measures alone.

Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss

HNO ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (S2) ◽  
pp. 98-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Arndt ◽  
R. Laszig ◽  
A. Aschendorff ◽  
F. Hassepass ◽  
R. Beck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss ◽  
Implant Treatment

scholarly journals Current criteria for selecting cochlear implant in deaf patients: a review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Santosh Kumar Swain
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Neural Plasticity ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Unilateral Deafness

Cochlear implantation is indicated in patients with severe to profound hearing loss that cannot be adequately treated by other auditory rehabilitation measures. The definitive indication of cochlear implantation is made on the basis of an extensive interdisciplinary clinical, audiological, radiological, and psychological diagnostic work-up. There are numerous changes are happening in cochlear implant candidacy. These have been associated with concomitant changes in surgical techniques, which enhanced the utility and safety of cochlear implantation. Currently, cochlear implants are approved for individuals with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss rather than previously needed for bilateral profound hearing loss. Studies have begun using the short electrode arrays for shallow insertion in patients with low-frequency residual hearing loss. The advancement in designs of the cochlear implant along with improvements in surgical techniques reduce the complications and result in the safety and efficacy of the cochlear implant which further encourages the use of these devices. This review article aims to discuss the new concepts in the candidacy of the cochlear implant, cochlear implant in younger children and hearing preservation, a cochlear implant for unilateral deafness, bilateral cochlear implant, and cochlear implant with neural plasticity and selection of patients for the cochlear implant.

scholarly journals Cochlear implantation restores cortical processing for spatial hearing in asymmetric hearing loss

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chadlia Karoui ◽  
Kuzma Strelnikov ◽  
Pierre Payoux ◽  
Anne-Sophie Salabert ◽  
Chris James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Cortical Activity ◽  
Asymmetry Index ◽  
Hemispheric Dominance ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Monaural Stimulation ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

In asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), the normal pattern of contralateral hemispheric dominance for monaural stimulation is modified, with a shift towards the hemisphere ipsilateral to the better ear. The extent of this shift has been shown to relate to sound localisation deficits. In this study, we examined whether cochlear implantation to treat AHL can restore the normal functional pattern of auditory cortical activity and whether this relates to improved sound localisation. We recruited 10 subjects with a cochlear implant for AHL (AHL-CI) and 10 normally-hearing controls. The participants performed a voice/non-voice discrimination task with binaural and monaural presentation of the sounds, and the cortical activity was measured using positron emission tomography (PET) brain imaging with a H215O tracer. The auditory cortical activity was found to be lower in the AHL-CI participants for all of the conditions. A cortical asymmetry index was calculated and showed that a normal contralateral dominance was restored in the AHL-CI patients for the non-implanted ear, but not for the ear with the cochlear implant. It was found that the contralateral dominance for the non-implanted ear strongly correlated with sound localisation performance (rho = 0.8, p < 0.05). We conclude that the restoration of binaural mechanisms in AHL-CI subjects reverses the abnormal lateralisation pattern induced by the deafness, and that this leads to improved spatial hearing. Our results suggest that cochlear implantation fosters the rehabilitation of binaural excitatory/inhibitory cortical interactions, which could enable the reconstruction of the auditory spatial selectivity needed for sound localisation.

Current indications for cochlear implantation in adults and children

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Szyfter ◽  
Michał Karlik ◽  
Alicja Sekula ◽  
Simon Harris ◽  
Wojciech Gawęcki
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Unilateral Deafness ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

Introduction: Surgical treatment of deafness by cochlear implants is used for more than 40 years, and during this period permanently, gradual and significant expansion of indications for this surgery has been observed. Material and methods: In our Department in the years 1994-2018 1480 cochlear implantations were performed, both in adults (647) and in children (883). In this study current indications and the rules for eligibility of patients based on 25 years of experience are presented. Results: Indications for cochlear implantation in adults are: 1) bilateral postlingual deafness, 2) bilateral sensorineural hearing loss - in pure tone audiometry > 70 dB HL (average 500-4000 Hz) and in speech audiometry in hearing aids understanding < 50% of words for the intensity of the stimulus 65 dB, in the absence of the benefits of hearing aids, 3) bilateral profound hearing loss for high frequency with good hearing for low frequency, in the absence of the benefits of hearing aids, 4) some cases of asymmetric hearing loss with intensive tinnitus in the deaf ear. An indication in children is bilateral sensorineural hearing loss > 80dB HL confirmed by hearing tests, after about 6 months of rehabilitation with the use of hearing aids. Discussion: Although cochlear implantation is used for more than 40 years, the indications for this treatment underlies constant modifications. They concern the age of eligible patients, implantation in patients with partially preserved hearing, as well as treatment for patients with difficult anatomical conditions. In many countries, bilateral implantations are commonly performed, and more and more centers recommend this treatment in the case of unilateral deafness or asymmetric hearing loss, especially with the accompanying tinnitus in the deaf ear.

Qualification of unilateral cochlear implant recipients for a second device

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Drela ◽  
Karolina Haber ◽  
Iwona Wrukowska ◽  
Michael Puricelli ◽  
Anna Sinkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Vestibular Organ ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Effective Use

Introduction: Although it is recommended to perform cochlear implantation in both ears at the same time for management of profound hearing loss in children, many centers prefer to perform sequential implantation. There are many reasons as to why a simultaneous bilateral implantation is not commonly accepted and performed. The major risk is the possibility of bilateral vestibular organ impairment. However, it is beyond doubt that children who received the first implant should be given a chance for binaural hearing and associated benefits. In the literature, there are no homogenous criteria for bilateral implantation, and it is hard to find uniform and convincing algorithms for second cochlear implantation. The aim of this study is an attempt to identify a safe way of qualifying for second cochlear implantation in children. Material and methods: Forty children with one cochlear implant were qualified for the second implantation. During qualification, the following were taken into account: time of the first implantation, audiometry results, use of the hearing aid in the ear without an implant and benefit of the device, speech and hearing development, and vestibular organ function. R esults: Fifteen out of forty children (38%) were qualified for the second implantation. In 35% of children, the decision was delayed with possible second implantation in the future. Eleven children (27%) were disqualified from the second surgery. Discussion: During evaluation according to the protocol presented in our study, 38% of children with a single cochlear implant were qualified for the second implantation with a chance for an optimal development and effective use of the second cochlear implant. We are convinced that sequential implantation with a short interval between surgeries and with an examination of the vestibular organ, hearing and speech development as well as an assessment of potential benefits from the second implant (bimodal stimulation) before the second implantation is the safest and most beneficial solution for children with severe hearing loss.

scholarly journals Vestibular Function After Cochlear Implantation in Partial Deafness Treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Sosna-Duranowska ◽  
Grazyna Tacikowska ◽  
Elzbieta Gos ◽  
Anna Krupa ◽  
Piotr Henryk Skarzynski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Vestibular Function ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Caloric Test ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Caloric Response ◽  
Vestibular Damage

Introduction: Cochlear implantation is a fully accepted method of treating individuals with profound hearing loss. Since the indications for cochlear implantation have broadened and include patients with low-frequency residual hearing, single-sided deafness, or an already implanted ear (meaning bilateral cochlear implantation), the emphasis now needs to be on vestibular protection.Materials and Methods: The research group was made up of 107 patients operated on in the otorhinolaryngosurgery department: 59 females and 48 males, aged 10.4–80.2 years (M = 44.4; SD = 18.4) with hearing loss lasting from 1.4 to 56 years (M = 22.7; SD = 13.5). The patients underwent cVEMP, oVEMP, a caloric test, and vHIT assessment preoperatively, and, postoperatively, cVEMP and oVEMP at 1–3 months and a caloric test and vHIT at 4–6 months.Results: After cochlear implantation, there was postoperative loss of cVEMP in 19.2% of the patients, oVEMP in 17.4%, reduction of caloric response in 11.6%, and postoperative destruction of the lateral, anterior, and posterior semicircular canal as measured with vHIT in 7.1, 3.9, and 4% respectively.Conclusions: Hearing preservation techniques in cochlear implantation are connected with vestibular protection, but the risk of vestibular damage in never totally eliminated. The vestibular preservation is associated with hearing preservation and the relation is statistically significant. Informed consent for cochlear implantation must include information about possible vestibular damage. Since the risk of vestibular damage is appreciable, preoperative otoneurological diagnostics need to be conducted in the following situations: qualification for a second implant, after otosurgery (especially if the opposite ear is to be implanted), having a history of vestibular complaints, and when there are no strict audiological or anatomical indications on which side to operate.

Contemporary Considerations for Cochlear Implantation for Children With Multiple Disabilities

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Waltzman
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Contemporary Management

Abstract Due to advances in cochlear implant technology and the remarkable outcomes often achieved by persons with severe to profound hearing loss, cochlear implant candidacy criteria has expanded since the first children were implanted almost twenty years ago. Evidence of this can be seen in the increased willingness to provide cochlear implants for children with multiple disabilities. Over the last decade, several reports have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature describing cochlear implant outcomes of children with multiple disabilities. This paper will summarize those reports, discuss realistic expectations of implantation for children with multiple disabilities, and describe contemporary management protocols for the otologic, audiologic, and rehabilitative management of children with multiple disabilities.

scholarly journals Recent Results with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant and TEMPO+ behind-the-ear Processor

2002 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilona Anderson ◽  
Viktor Weichbold ◽  
Patrick D'Haese
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Distinct Advantage ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
German Study ◽  
Viable Treatment

Cochlear implantation is a viable treatment for patients with severe to profound hearing loss. We report the results of speech perception tests (numbers, monosyllables, and sentence tests) achieved with MED-EL's COMBI 40+ (C40+) cochlear implant after 12 months of use. These findings, which were taken from a larger German study, were similar to those of other studies of the C40+ implant. We also compared the differences in speech perception observed with the CIS PRO+ body-worn speech processor and the newer TEMPO+ behind-the-ear speech processor. Although these results were similar with respect to most of the measured parameters, the TEMPO+ processor had a distinct advantage during tests in noise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document