Pediatric cochlear implantation: how much hearing is too much?

Benefits and risks related to cochlear implantation for children with residual hearing: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to synthesise information concerning the potential benefits and risks related to cochlear implants (CIs) versus hearing aids (HAs) in children with residual hearing.

DESIGN

A systematic review of articles published from January 2003 to January 2019 was conducted.

STUDY SAMPLE

Our review included studies that compared the benefits and risks of CIs versus HAs in children (≤18 years old) with residual hearing. A total of 3265 citations were identified; 8 studies met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Children with CIs showed significantly better speech perception scores post-CI than pre-CI. There was limited evidence related to improvement in everyday auditory performance, and the results showed non-significant improvement in speech intelligibility. One study on social-emotional functioning suggested benefits from CIs. In four studies, 37.2% (16/43) of children showed loss of residual hearing and 14.0% (8/57) had discontinued or limited use of their device.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with CIs showed improvement in speech perception outcomes compared to those with HAs. However, due to the limited number of studies and information to guide decision-making related to other areas of development, it will be important to conduct further research of both benefits and risks of CIs in this specific population to facilitate decision-making.

Determining cochlear implant candidacy in children with residual hearing: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to summarize what is known about criteria, assessments, and recommendations for evaluating cochlear implant (CI) candidacy in children with residual hearing.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed studies were identified through a systematic search in five electronic databases. Articles were screened and assessed for eligibility. From the eligible studies, data were extracted to summarize and present a narrative synthesis of the findings.

RESULTS

A total of seven articles (two reviews and five primary studies) were included in the final analysis. Hearing levels better than the moderately severe to severe range (65-90 dB HL) tend to be supported as audiological candidacy criteria for pediatric CI. Recommendations for candidacy consideration based on audiologic thresholds range from 65 to 80 dB Hl pure-tone average as the lower boundary. Our review did not identify any specific assessment protocols. However, additional decision-making considerations related to borderline hearing loss configurations and assessment tools (the Speech Intelligibility Index and the Pediatric Minimum Speech Test Battery) were identified. Supplementary assessment considerations were also reported.

CONCLUSION

There is limited information regarding specific assessment protocols for children with residual hearing. The literature is primarily focused on guidelines related to audiologic criteria, although it is widely recommended that other areas of functioning should also be considered. Most recommendations appear to be based on expert opinion, clinical expertise, and evidence from overall pediatric CI outcomes rather than empirical evidence targeting children with residual hearing. There is an ongoing need for research to further develop protocols and tools that can assist clinicians and families in making cochlear implantation decisions for children with residual hearing.

Cochlear implant decision-making for children with residual hearing: Perspectives of parents

PURPOSE

Cochlear implant (CI) decision-making is particularly challenging for families of children who have residual hearing. Parents of these children may be uncertain about whether the potential benefits of CIs outweigh the risks. This study aimed to understand parents' decisional needs during the decision-making process for children with residual hearing.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 11 children who had received CIs. Open-ended questions were asked to encourage parents to share their experiences about the decision-making process, their values/preferences, and their needs. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Data were organized according to three key themes: (1) Parents' decisional conflict, (2) values and preferences, (3) decision support and parents' needs. We found that overall parents were satisfied with their decision-making process and the decision support from practitioners. However, parents stressed the importance of receiving more personalized information that considers their specific concerns, values and preferences related to family's circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research provides additional evidence to guide the CI decision-making process for children with residual hearing. Additional collaborative research with audiology and decision-making experts specifically on facilitating shared decision-making is needed to provide better decision coaching for these families.

Cochlear Implant Decision Making for Children With Residual Hearing: Perspectives of Practitioners

PURPOSE

Cochlear implants (CIs) are increasingly considered for children with residual hearing who benefit from hearing aids (HAs). However, the decision-making process for families of these children and for practitioners is particularly challenging because there is no clear audiological cut point for CI candidacy. This study aimed to understand Canadian practitioners' perspectives of the CI decision-making process and how they guide families of children with residual hearing.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a total of 17 practitioners through four focus groups and one individual interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Data were organized into five broad domains: candidacy issues for children with residual hearing, practitioners' roles in decision support, additional considerations affecting decision making, factors facilitating decision making, and practitioners' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that practitioners' confidence in determining candidacy and supporting parents has increased due to their experiences with positive outcomes for these children. Practitioners indicated that there was a need for more research to guide the decision-making process.

Efficacy of cochlear implants in children with borderline hearing who have already achieved significant language development with hearing aids

There are still debates about timing and effectiveness of cochlear implants (CI) in pediatric subjects with significant residual hearing who do not belong to traditional indication of CI. In this study, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of CI, specifically on improvement of pronunciation, among hearing-impaired children already with a substantial degree of language skills as evaluated by Categories of Auditory Perception (CAP) scores or sentence score. Our cohort comprised pediatric CI recipients from July 2018 through October 2020. Among them, cases with CAP scores of 5 or 6 preoperatively were defined as "borderline cases". We investigated prevalence and etiologies, and compared speech evaluation data preoperatively and postoperatively at three time points (3, 6 and 9-12 months after implantation). Among 86 pediatric CI recipients, 13 subjects (15.12%) had language development that reached CAP scores of 5 or 6 before implantation. Postoperative speech evaluation data 6 months after implantation revealed significant improvement of pronunciation (Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonation scores: UTAP), Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS) and word perception scores, but not of CAP and sentence perception scores. Notably, the significant improvement of pronunciation based on UTAP scores outstripped that of other speech parameters and this continued steadily up to one-year postoperatively. The result of the study serves as evidence for what to expect from cochlear implantation in hearing-impaired children who have already achieved a substantial degree of language development in terms of CAP scores or sentence perception scores, preoperatively.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

This article summarizes the available evidence on pediatric cochlear implantation to provide current guidelines for clinical protocols and candidacy recommendations in the United States. Candidacy determination involves specification of audiologic and medical criteria per guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration. However, recommendations for a cochlear implant evaluation also should maintain flexibility and consider a child’s skill progression (i.e., month-for-month progress in speech, language, and auditory development) and quality of life with appropriately fit hearing aids. Moreover, evidence supports medical and clinical decisions based on other factors, including (a) ear-specific performance, which affords inclusion of children with asymmetric hearing loss and single-sided deafness as implant candidates; (b) ear-specific residual hearing, which influences surgical technique and device selection to optimize hearing; and (c) early intervention to minimize negative long-term effects on communication and quality of life related to delayed identification of implant candidacy, later age at implantation, and/or limited commitment to an audiologic rehabilitation program. These evidence-based guidelines for current clinical protocols in determining pediatric cochlear implant candidacy encourage a team-based approach focused on the whole child and the family system.

Spoken Language Skills in Children With Bilateral Hearing Aids or Bilateral Cochlear Implants at the Age of Three Years

Early hearing aid (HA) fitting and cochlear implants (CIs) aim to reduce the effects of hearing loss (HL) on spoken language development. The goals of this study were (1) to examine spoken language skills of children with bilateral HAs and children with bilateral CIs; (2) to compare their language skills to the age-norms of peers with normal hearing (NH); and (3) to investigate factors associated with spoken language outcomes.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with cochlear implants who had preoperative residual hearing

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implants (CI) candidacy criteria have expanded to include children with more residual hearing. This study explored the clinical profiles and outcomes of children with CIs who had preoperative residual hearing in at least one ear.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect clinical characteristics and speech perception data. Pre- and post-CI auditory and speech perception data were analysed using a modified version of the Pediatric Ranked Order Speech Perception (PROSPER) score.

STUDY SAMPLE

This study included all children with residual hearing who received CIs in one Canadian paediatric centre from 1992 to 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 100 of 389 (25.7%) children with CIs had residual hearing (median 77.6 dB HL, better ear). The proportion of children with residual hearing increased from 1992 to 2018. Children who had auditory behaviour and speech perception tests (n = 83) showed higher modified PROSPER scores post-CI compared to pre-CI. Phonologically Balanced Kindergarten (PBK) test scores were available for 71 children post-CI; 81.7% (58/71) of children achieved > 80% on the PBK.

CONCLUSIONS

One in four children who received CIs had residual hearing, and most of them had severe hearing loss at pre-CI. These children showed a high level of speech perception with CIs.

Delaying Cochlear Implantation Impacts Postoperative Speech Perception of Nontraditional Pediatric Candidates

INTRODUCTION

As pediatric cochlear implant (CI) candidacy expands, children with greater degrees of residual hearing are receiving CIs. These nontraditional candidates have audiometric thresholds that meet adult manufacturer labeling but are better than current pediatric guidelines allow. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of delayed cochlear implantation on speech perception in nontraditional pediatric CI recipients.

METHODS

Pediatric CI recipients with a history of progressive hearing loss and a preoperative 4-frequency pure-tone average of ≤75 dB HL at the time of implantation were considered for this retrospective study. Preoperative serial audiograms and word recognition scores were reviewed, and a method was created to establish a date when each individual ear 1st met nontraditional candidacy. The length of time between the date of candidacy and implantation was calculated and defined as the "delay time." A multiple linear regression investigated delay time, age at surgery, surgery type (1st vs. 2nd side), and array type as predictive factors of maximum postoperative Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores. A one-way ANCOVA was performed comparing the postoperative CNC scores between subjects grouped by delay time.

RESULTS

A significant regression was found (F(4, 38) = 5.167, p = 0.002, R2 = 0.353). Both age at implantation (p = 0.023) and delay time (p = 0.002) predicted CNC word scores. Longer delay time was associated with poorer word recognition scores, while older age at implantation correlated with higher CNC word scores in this progressive hearing loss group. A significant difference was noted between subjects implanted with <1 year of delay and those with 3 or more years of delay (p = 0.003). All ears implanted within a year of candidacy achieved word recognition abilities that are generally accepted as above average (M = 84.91).

CONCLUSION

CI candidacy for adults has evolved to allow for greater degrees of residual hearing, while audiometric guidelines for children have not changed since 2000. Our findings suggest that delay of cochlear implantation, even for children with significant levels of residual hearing, leads to poorer outcomes. Modified candidacy guidelines for children should be established to expedite referral to multidisciplinary CI teams and minimize delays in this population.

Quantity and Quality of Parental Utterances and Responses to Children With Hearing Loss Prior to Cochlear Implant

This study investigated the extent to which parental language input to children with hearing loss (HL) prior to cochlear implant (CI) differs from input to children with typical hearing (TH). A 20-min parent-child interaction sample was collected for 13 parent-child dyads in the HL group and 17 dyads in the TH group during free play. Ten minutes were transcribed and were coded for four variables: (a) overall utterances, (b) high-quality utterances, (c) utterances in response to child communicative acts (i.e., overall responses), and (d) high-quality utterances in response to child communicative acts (i.e., high-quality responses). Differences were detected for both quantity and quality of parental language input across the two groups. Early language skills correlated with three out of the four parental variables in both groups. Post hoc analyses suggested that the lower rate of high-quality responses in parents of children with HL could be attributed to lower intelligibility of child communication.

Health-related quality of life in South African children who use cochlear implants

Objective: To describe health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of school-going paediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a South African cohort from the perspectives of parents.Design: Parents of school-going CI recipients completed the Children with Cochlear Implants: Parental Perspectives (CCIPP) CI-specific HRQoL questionnaire. The effect of different demographic variables on HRQoL outcomes was also determined.Study sample: The study sample included 54 parents of school-going (mean age = 12.2 years; SD = 3.6; range = 6.6-18.3 years) CI recipients with at least six months CI experience.Results: Children's communication and general functioning with a CI received the most positive parental ratings. Among a number of confirmed statistically significant (p < 0.05) associations between HRQoL outcomes and demographic variables, pre-lingual onset of deafness was linked to better HRQoL in terms of general functioning and well-being. While shorter duration of deafness and unilateral implantation were associated with higher parental ratings for self-reliance and well-being respectively, longer duration of CI use was linked to improved HRQoL outcomes in terms of general functioning.Conclusion: Parents assigned positive ratings to their child's HRQoL. This exploration of children's HRQoL related to their CIs contributes to evidence-based paediatric CI services that promote optimal psychosocial outcomes.

Cochlear Implantation and Social-Emotional Functioning of Children with Hearing Loss

This study examined the contribution of cochlear implants (CIs) to the social-emotional functioning of children who are deaf or hard of hearing (dhh). Sixty-three parents of children who are dhh participated in the study. Thirty children were CI users and 32 used hearing aids (HAs). They completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and a background questionnaire. Parents of children with CIs reported lower levels of hyperactivity/inattention and higher levels of pro-social behavior compared to parents of children with HAs. Additionally, older age when hearing loss was detected was related to more pro-social behavior, and age at implantation among CI users was negatively correlated with children's hyperactivity/inattention and conduct problems. These findings add to the existing knowledge about the many benefits of CIs for individuals with hearing loss and emphasize the possible impact of early implantation to children's social-emotional functioning.

Pediatric Cochlear Implantation: Why Do Children Receive Implants Late?

OBJECTIVES

Early cochlear implantation has been widely promoted for children who derive inadequate benefit from conventional acoustic amplification. Universal newborn hearing screening has led to earlier identification and intervention, including cochlear implantation in much of the world. The purpose of this study was to examine age and time to cochlear implantation and to understand the factors that affected late cochlear implantation in children who received cochlear implants.

DESIGN

In this population-based study, data were examined for all children who underwent cochlear implant surgery in one region of Canada from 2002 to 2013. Clinical characteristics were collected prospectively as part of a larger project examining outcomes from newborn hearing screening. For this study, audiologic details including age and severity of hearing loss at diagnosis, age at cochlear implant candidacy, and age at cochlear implantation were documented. Additional detailed medical chart information was extracted to identify the factors associated with late implantation for children who received cochlear implants more than 12 months after confirmation of hearing loss.

RESULTS

The median age of diagnosis of permanent hearing loss for 187 children was 12.6 (interquartile range: 5.5, 21.7) months, and the age of cochlear implantation over the 12-year period was highly variable with a median age of 36.2 (interquartile range: 21.4, 71.3) months. A total of 118 (63.1%) received their first implant more than 12 months after confirmation of hearing loss. Detailed analysis of clinical profiles for these 118 children revealed that late implantation could be accounted for primarily by progressive hearing loss (52.5%), complex medical conditions (16.9%), family indecision (9.3%), geographical location (5.9%), and other miscellaneous known (6.8%) and unknown factors (8.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that despite the trend toward earlier implantation, a substantial number of children can be expected to receive their first cochlear implant well beyond their first birthday because they do not meet audiologic criteria of severe to profound hearing loss for cochlear implantation at the time of identification of permanent hearing loss. This study underscores the importance of carefully monitoring all children with permanent hearing loss to ensure that optimal intervention including cochlear implantation occurs in a timely manner.

Predictors of pediatric cochlear implantation outcomes in South Africa

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe predictors of pediatric cochlear implantation outcomes in a South African population.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 301 pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients from five CI programs was conducted and cross-sectional outcome data were added at the time of data collection. Twenty potential prognostic factors were identified from the retrospective dataset, including demographical, CI, risk and family factors. Multiple regression analyses were performed to identify predictor variables that influence outcomes in terms of auditory performance (CAP scores), speech production (SIR scores), communication mode and educational placement.

RESULTS

Although implanted children within this sample did not have equal opportunity to access a second implant, bilateral implantation was strongly predictive of better auditory performance and speech production scores, an oral mode of communication and mainstream education. NICU admittance/prematurity were associated with poorer auditory performance and speech production scores, together with a higher probability for non-oral communication and non-mainstream education. The presence of one or more additional developmental condition was predictive of poorer outcomes in terms of speech production and educational placement, while a delay between diagnosis and implantation of more than one year was also related to non-mainstream education. Ethnicities other than Caucasian were predictive of poorer auditory performance scores and a lower probability for mainstream education.

CONCLUSION

An extensive range of prognostic indicators were identified for pediatric CI outcomes in South Africa. These predictive factors of better and poorer outcomes should guide pediatric CI services to promote optimal outcomes and assist professionals in providing evidence-based informational counseling.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

Bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is a standard criterion for cochlear implantation. Increasingly, patients are implanted in one ear and continue to use a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear to improve abilities such as sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Patients with severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and a more moderate hearing loss in the other ear (i.e., asymmetric hearing) are not typically considered candidates for cochlear implantation. Amplification in the poorer ear is often unsuccessful because of limited benefit, restricting the patient to unilateral listening from the better ear alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with asymmetric hearing loss could benefit from cochlear implantation in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear.

DESIGN

Ten adults with asymmetric hearing between ears participated. In the poorer ear, all participants met cochlear implant candidacy guidelines; seven had postlingual onset, and three had pre/perilingual onset of severe to profound hearing loss. All had open-set speech recognition in the better-hearing ear. Assessment measures included word and sentence recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in fixed noise (four-talker babble) and in diffuse restaurant noise using an adaptive procedure, localization of word stimuli, and a hearing handicap scale. Participants were evaluated preimplant with hearing aids and postimplant with the implant alone, the hearing aid alone in the better ear, and bimodally (the implant and hearing aid in combination). Postlingual participants were evaluated at 6 mo postimplant, and pre/perilingual participants were evaluated at 6 and 12 mo postimplant. Data analysis compared the following results: (1) the poorer-hearing ear preimplant (with hearing aid) and postimplant (with cochlear implant); (2) the device(s) used for everyday listening pre- and postimplant; and (3) the hearing aid-alone and bimodal listening conditions postimplant.

RESULTS

The postlingual participants showed significant improvements in speech recognition after 6 mo cochlear implant use in the poorer ear. Five postlingual participants had a bimodal advantage over the hearing aid-alone condition on at least one test measure. On average, the postlingual participants had significantly improved localization with bimodal input compared with the hearing aid-alone. Only one pre/perilingual participant had open-set speech recognition with the cochlear implant. This participant had better hearing than the other two pre/perilingual participants in both the poorer and better ear. Localization abilities were not significantly different between the bimodal and hearing aid-alone conditions for the pre/perilingual participants. Mean hearing handicap ratings improved postimplant for all participants indicating perceived benefit in everyday life with the addition of the cochlear implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical cochlear implant candidates can benefit from using a cochlear implant in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. For this group of 10, the 7 postlingually deafened participants showed greater benefits with the cochlear implant than the pre/perilingual participants; however, further study is needed to determine maximum benefit for those with early onset of hearing loss.

Exploring factors that affect the age of cochlear implantation in children

OBJECTIVE

Early access to sound through early cochlear implantation has been widely advocated for children who do not derive sufficient benefit from acoustic amplification. Early identification through newborn hearing screening should lead to earlier intervention including earlier cochlear implantation when appropriate. Despite earlier diagnosis and the trend towards early implantation, many children are still implanted well into their preschool years. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affected late cochlear implantation in children with early onset permanent sensorineural hearing loss.

METHODS

Data were examined for 43 children with cochlear implants who were part of a group of 71 children with hearing loss enrolled in a Canadian outcomes study. Eighteen (41.9%) of the 43 children were identified through newborn screening and 25 (58.1%) through medical referral to audiology. Medical chart data were examined to determine age of hearing loss diagnosis, age at cochlear implant candidacy, and age at cochlear implantation. Detailed reviews were conducted to identify the factors that resulted in implantation more than 12 months after hearing loss confirmation.

RESULTS

The median age of diagnosis of hearing loss for all 43 children was 9.0 (IQR: 5.1, 15.8) months and a median of 9.1 (IQR: 5.6, 26.8) months elapsed between diagnosis and unilateral cochlear implantation. The median age at identification for the screened groups was 3.3 months (IQR: 1.4, 7.1) but age at implantation (median 15.8 months: IQR: 5.6, 37.1) was highly variable. Eighteen of 43 children (41.9%) received a cochlear implant more than 12 months after initial hearing loss diagnosis. For many children, diagnosis of hearing loss was not equivalent to the determination of cochlear implant candidacy. Detailed reviews of audiologic profiles and study data indicated that late implantation could be accounted for primarily by progressive hearing loss (11 children), complex medical conditions (4 children) and other miscellaneous factors (3 children).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that a substantial number of children will continue to receive cochlear implants well beyond their first birthday primarily due to progressive hearing loss. In addition, other medical conditions may contribute to delayed decisions in pediatric cochlear implantation.

Coming to a decision about cochlear implantation: parents making choices for their deaf children

This study combined quantitative and qualitative methods in a sequential approach to investigate the experiences of parents making decisions about cochlear implants for their deaf children. Quantitative findings from a survey instrument completed by 247 parents were extended and elaborated by qualitative findings from in-depth interviews with 27 of the survey respondents. Although parents used a variety of information sources when considering an implant, cochlear implant centers and doctors comprised their major source of information. Most parents found the decision-making process difficult and stressful, but a proportion reported finding the decision easy, believing that there was no other option for their child, and were keen for implantation to proceed as soon as possible. Implications for professionals working with families are discussed.