Escaping a silent world: profound hearing loss, cochlear implants and household interaction

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Ross ◽  
Phil Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Household Interaction

scholarly journals Cochlear Implantation after Bacterial Meningitis in Infants Younger Than 9 Months

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Y. Roukema ◽  
M. C. Van Loon ◽  
C. Smits ◽  
C. F. Smit ◽  
S. T. Goverts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Bacterial Meningitis ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pneumococcal Meningitis ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Young Infants ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Auditory Performance

Objective. To describe the audiological, anesthesiological, and surgical key points of cochlear implantation after bacterial meningitis in very young infants.Material and Methods. Between 2005 and 2010, 4 patients received 7 cochlear implants before the age of 9 months (range 4–8 months) because of profound hearing loss after pneumococcal meningitis.Results. Full electrode insertions were achieved in all operated ears. The audiological and linguistic outcome varied considerably, with categories of auditory performance (CAP) scores between 3 and 6, and speech intelligibility rating (SIR) scores between 0 and 5. The audiological, anesthesiological, and surgical issues that apply in this patient group are discussed.Conclusion. Cochlear implantation in very young postmeningitic infants is challenging due to their young age, sequelae of meningitis, and the risk of cochlear obliteration. A swift diagnostic workup is essential, specific audiological, anesthesiological, and surgical considerations apply, and the outcome is variable even in successful implantations.

Current Practices in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamala S. Bradham ◽  
Geneine Snell ◽  
David Haynes
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Comprehensive Management ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Management Protocol ◽  
Professional Guidelines

Abstract Technological advances, specifically cochlear implants, have significantly impacted the treatment of children with severe to profound hearing loss. There are, however, very few professional guidelines or resources providing direction for hearing healthcare providers who are serving children with cochlear implants. The following article discusses a comprehensive management protocol for interdisciplinary teams providing cochlear implant services for children.

Effects of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening on an Early Intervention Program for Children with Hearing Loss, Birth to 3 Yr of Age

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy S. Halpin ◽  
Kay Y. Smith ◽  
Judith E. Widen ◽  
Mark E. Chertoff
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Age Of Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnosis Age

Background: Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) was introduced in Kansas in 1999. Prior to UNHS a small percentage of newborns were screened for and identified with hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of UNHS on a local early intervention (EI) program for young children with hearing loss. Research Design: This was a retrospective study based on the chart review of children enrolled in the EI program during target years before and after the establishment of UNHS. Study Sample: Charts for 145 children were reviewed. Data Collection and Analysis: The chart review targeted the following aspects of the EI program: caseload size, percentage of caseload identified by UNHS, age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in EI, degree of hearing loss, etiology of hearing loss, late onset of hearing loss, age of hearing aid fit, percentage of children fit with hearing aids by 6 mo, percentage of children with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants, and percentage of children with additional disabilities. Results: Changes in the EI program that occurred after UNHS were increases in caseload size, percentage of caseload identified by UNHS, percentage of children fit with hearing aids by 6 mo of age, and percentage of children with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. There were decreases in age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in EI, and age of hearing aid fit. Before UNHS, the majority of children had severe and profound hearing loss; after UNHS there were more children with mild and moderate hearing loss. The percentage of known etiology and late-onset hearing loss was approximately the same before and after UNHS, as was the percentage of children with additional disabilities. Conclusion: UNHS had a positive impact on caseload size, age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in EI, and age of hearing aid fit. The percentage of the caseload identified in the newborn period was about 25% before UNHS and over 80% after its implementation. After UNHS, the EI caseload included as many children with mild and moderate hearing loss as with severe and profound loss. By the last reporting year in the study (academic year 2005–2006) all children with profound hearing losses had cochlear implants.

scholarly journals Cochlear Implants in Patients with Fluctuant or Progressive Hearing Loss on the Better Ear

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Luiz Mangabeira-Albernaz ◽  
Andrea Felice dos Santos Malerbi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Noisy Environments ◽  
Progressive Hearing Loss ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Unilateral Deafness ◽  
Definite Improvement

Abstract Introduction Cochlear implants have been proposed for cases of unilateral hearing loss, especially in patients with tinnitus impairment. Several studies have shown that they result in definite improvement of sound localization and speech understanding, both in quiet and noisy environments. On the other hand, there are few references regarding cochlear implants in patients whose better ears present hearing loss. Objective To report the audiological outcomes of three patients with unilateral deafness, in whom the better ears presented hearing losses, submitted to cochlear implants. Methods Three patients with unilateral profound hearing loss underwent a cochlear implant performed by the same surgeon. Results The patients' data are presented in detail. Conclusion The indications for cochlear implants are becoming more diverse with the expansion of clinical experience and the observation that they definitely help patients with special hearing problems.

Cochlear Implants for Children with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

2007 ◽  
Vol 357 (23) ◽  
pp. 2380-2387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake C. Papsin ◽  
Karen A. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss

scholarly journals Academic Outcomes for School-Aged Children With Severe–Profound Hearing Loss and Early Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implants

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 1017-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Z. Sarant ◽  
David C. Harris ◽  
Lisa A. Bennet
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Family Environment ◽  
Oral Language ◽  
Academic Outcomes ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss

Purpose This study sought to (a) determine whether academic outcomes for children who received early cochlear implants (CIs) are age appropriate, (b) determine whether bilateral CI use significantly improves academic outcomes, and (c) identify other factors that are predictive of these outcomes. Method Forty-four 8-year-old children with severe–profound hearing loss participated in this study. Their academic development in mathematics, oral language, reading, and written language was assessed using a standardized test of academic achievement. Results (a) Across all academic areas, the proportion of children in the average or above-average ranges was lower than expected for children with normal hearing. The strongest area of performance was written language, and the weakest was mathematics. (b) Children using bilateral CIs achieved significantly higher scores for oral language, math, and written language, after controlling for predictive factors, than did children using unilateral CIs. Younger ages at second CI predicted the largest improvements. (c) High levels of parental involvement and greater time spent by children reading significantly predicted academic success, although other factors were identified. Conclusions Average academic outcomes for these children were below those of children with normal hearing. Having bilateral CIs at younger ages predicted the best outcomes. Family environment was also important to children's academic performance.

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 Profound Hearing Loss: Addressing Barriers to Hearing Healthcare

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (04) ◽  
pp. 428-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Professional Training ◽  
Community Outreach ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Barriers To Healthcare ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Common Barriers

AbstractThe impact of profound hearing loss on infants and adults is variable and greatly influenced by improved audition derived from hearing aids and cochlear implants. However, barriers to healthcare, hearing healthcare in particular, can offset the benefits provided by these sensory devices. Common barriers include cost, location, availability of trained professionals, acceptance of the hearing loss, language and cultural differences, secondary disabilities, and mental health issues. These barriers and their distinct presentations vary somewhat by age, language, and where people live (urban vs. rural), and can interfere with receiving testing and devices in a timely manner. They also can limit auditory, speech and language therapies, and interfere with acceptance of the hearing loss and devices. Rehabilitation should focus on eliminating or reducing the adverse impact of these barriers on patients and their families. Some of which can be done through professional training and multidisciplinary activities, counseling, and community outreach.

Balance sensory organization in children with profound hearing loss and cochlear implants

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Suarez ◽  
S. Angeli ◽  
A. Suarez ◽  
B. Rosales ◽  
X. Carrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensory Organization

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutsa Gumbie ◽  
Emma Olin ◽  
Bonny Parkinson ◽  
Ross Bowman ◽  
Henry Cutler
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Research has shown unilateral cochlear implants (CIs) significantly improve clinical outcomes and quality of life in adults. However, only 13% of eligible Swedish adults currently use a unilateral CI. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of unilateral CIs compared to a hearing aid for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss. Methods A Markov model with a lifetime horizon and six-month cycle length was developed to estimate the benefits and costs of unilateral CIs from the Swedish health system perspective. A treatment pathway was developed through consultation with clinical experts to estimate resource use and costs. Unit costs were derived from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Health outcomes were reported in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Results Unilateral CIs for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss are likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (SEK 140,474 per QALY gained). The results were most sensitive to the age when patients are implanted with a CI and the proportion of patients eligible for CIs after triage. Conclusions An increase in the prevalence of Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss is expected as the population ages. Earlier implantation of unilateral CIs improves the cost-effectiveness among people eligible for CIs. Unilateral CIs are an efficacious and cost-effective option to improve hearing and quality of life in Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document