scholarly journals "Features of cochlear implantation and methods of auditory rehabilitation of children with cochlear implant"

Author(s):  
N. Obukhova ◽  
◽  
T. Dudchenko ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Christiane Völter ◽  
Lisa Götze ◽  
Imme Haubitz ◽  
Janine Müther ◽  
Stefan Dazert ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Age-related hearing loss affects about one-third of the population worldwide. Studies suggest that hearing loss may be linked to cognitive decline and auditory rehabilitation may improve cognitive functions. So far, the data are limited, and the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. The study aimed to analyze the impact of cochlear implantation on cognition in a large homogeneous population of hearing-impaired adults using a comprehensive non-auditory cognitive assessment with regard to normal-hearing (NH) subjects. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> Seventy-one cochlear implant (CI) candidates with a postlingual, bilateral severe or profound hearing loss aged 66.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.2) and 105 NH subjects aged 65.96 years (SD 9.4) were enrolled. The computer-based neurocognitive tool applied included 11 subtests covering attention (M3), short- and long-term memory (recall and delayed recall), working memory (0- and 2-back, Operation Span [OSPAN] task), processing speed (Trail Making Test [TMT] A), mental flexibility (TMT B), inhibition (cFlanker and iFlanker), and verbal fluency. CI patients underwent a neurocognitive testing preoperatively as well as 12 months postoperatively. Impact of hearing status, age, gender, and education on cognitive subdomains was studied. Additionally, after controlling for education and age, cognitive performance of CI subjects (<i>n</i> = 41) was compared to that of NH (<i>n</i> = 34). <b><i>Results:</i></b> CI users achieved significantly better neurocognitive scores 12 months after cochlear implantation than before in most subtests (M3, [delayed] recall, 2-back, OSPAN, iFlanker, and verbal fluency; all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05) except for the TMT A and B. A significant correlation could be found between the postoperative improvement in speech perception and in the attentional task M3 (<i>p</i> = 0.01). Hearing status (<i>p</i> = 0.0006) had the strongest effect on attention, whereas education had a high impact on recall (<i>p</i> = 0.002), OSPAN (<i>p</i> = 0.0004), and TMT A (<i>p</i> = 0.005) and B (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Inhibition was mainly age-dependent with better results in younger subjects (<i>p</i> = 0.016). Verbal fluency was predicted by gender as females outperformed men (<i>p</i> = 0.009). Even after controlling for age and education NH subjects showed a significantly better performance than CI candidates in the recall (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and delayed recall (<i>p</i> = 0.01) tasks. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups anymore. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Impact of cochlear implantation on neurocognitive functions differs according to the cognitive subdomains. Postoperatively, CI recipients performed as good as age- and education-matched NH subjects.


1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1008-1017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Jamal A. Makhdoum ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Paul van den Broek

AbstractThe field of cochlear implantation is developing rapidly. In subjects with bilateral profound deafness who gain no benefit from conventional hearing aids the aim of cochlear implantation is to provide a means for them to receive auditory sensations. Throughout the world, most cochlear implant centres are still continuing their research efforts to improve the results with this technique. Although it is still difficult to predict how an individual will perform with a cochlear implant, the success of cochlear implantation can no longer be denied. In this paper, we review some recent papers and reports, and the results of the various Nijmegen cochlear implant studies. Data about subject selection, examinations, surgery and the outcome are discussed. Our results were in good agreement with those of other authors. It can be concluded once again that cochlear implantation is an effective treatment for postlingually deaf adults and children, and for prelingually (congenital or acquired) deaf children with profound bilateral sensorineural deafness.


2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (06) ◽  
pp. 348-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Sydlowski ◽  
Michael J. Cevette ◽  
Jon Shallop ◽  
David M. Barrs

Background: Considered a rare disorder, superficial siderosis of the central nervous system (SSCN) has become more frequently diagnosed in recent years. As it is characterized by progressive sensorineural hearing loss, patients' needs may surpass the capability of hearing aid technology. Despite the retrocochlear nature of the disorder, patients have undergone cochlear implantation (CI) with varying success. Purpose: To summarize the issues surrounding cochlear implant candidates with SSCN as well as highlight trends in performance postimplantation. Research Design: Retrospective case reports of seven cochlear implant candidates detail the symptoms, typical audiologic presentation, and array of clinical issues for patients with this progressive and potentially fatal disease. Results: Despite the retrocochlear component of a hearing loss caused by SSCN, cochlear implantation may be a viable option. Conclusions: It is essential that the CI audiologist not only be aware of the disorder but also be well versed in the resulting implications for the cochlear implant process. A more thorough case history, an expanded candidacy test battery, and knowledge of the typical presentation of SSCN are critical. The diagnosis of SSCN will impact expectations for success with the cochlear implant, and counseling should be adjusted accordingly.


2004 ◽  
Vol 132 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 302-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rade Kosanovic ◽  
Zoran Ivankovic ◽  
Sandra Stojanovic

During the last several decades, cochlear implant has been fully recognized in treatment of severe hearing loss. Development of modern technology enabled inconceivable possibilities of technical qualities of the device as well as development of usable coding strategies, which led to extraordinary results in patient rehabilitation. Although cochlear implantation has become one of the routine operative procedures throughout the world nowadays, it gives rise to certain complications. These complications, though rare, can sometimes be very serious, even with fatal outcome. If cochlear implantation is performed by experienced and well-educated team of experts, the possibility of complications is minimal and is certainly not the argument against cochlear implantation as a method of treatment of severe hearing impairments.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augusto Peñaranda ◽  
Roberto Suárez M ◽  
Natalia Niño M ◽  
Maria Leonor Aparicio ◽  
Juan Manuel García ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Gillian Robyn Kerr ◽  
Seppo Tuomi ◽  
Alida Müller

Cochlear implantation is an expensive but effective lifelong intervention for individuals with a severe-to-profound hearing loss. The primary aim of this study was to survey the short- and long-term costs of cochlear implantation. Individuals (N=154) using cochlear implants obtained from the University of Stellenbosch-Tygerberg Hospital Cochlear Implant Unit in Cape Town, South Africa were surveyed using a questionnaire and patient record review. The questionnaire used a combination of closed and open-ended questions to gather both quantitative and qualitative information. Costs were categorised as short- and long-term costs. All costs were converted to constant rands (June 2010) using the Consumer Price Index to allow for comparison in real terms over time. In the first 10 years of implantation the average estimated costs incurred by adults totalled R379 626, and by children R455 225. The initial purchase of the implant system was the most substantial cost, followed by upgrading of the processor. Travel and accommodation costs peaked in the first 2 years. On average the participants spent R2 550 per year on batteries and spares. Rehabilitation for children cost an average of R7 200. Insurance costs averaged R4 040 per year, and processor repairs R3 000 each. In addition to the upfront expense of obtaining the cochlear implant system, individuals using a cochlear implant in South Africa should be prepared for the long-term costs of maintenance, accessing the unit, support services and additional costs associated with use. Knowledge of these costs is important to ensure that individuals are successful users of their cochlear implants in the long term.


Author(s):  
M. Puechmaille ◽  
C. Lambert ◽  
K. Aubry ◽  
P. Bordure ◽  
A. Bozorg-Grayeli ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document