Outcomes of cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study is a systematic review of the literature which seeks to evaluate auditory and quality of life (QOL) outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with Usher syndrome.

METHODS

Systematic review of studies indexed in Medline via PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov was performed up to March 9th 2022, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Patient demographics, comorbidity, details of cochlear implantation, auditory, and QOL outcomes were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

33 studies reported over 217 cochlear implants in 187 patients with Usher syndrome, comprising subtypes 1 (56 patients), 2 (9 patients), 3 (23 patients), and not specified (99 patients). Auditory outcomes included improved sound detection, speech perception, and speech intelligibility. QOL outcomes were reported for 75 patients, with benefit reported in the majority.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with Usher syndrome develop improved auditory outcomes after cochlear implantation with early implantation being an important factor.

A MultiCenter Analysis of Factors Associated with Hearing Outcome for 2,735 Adults with Cochlear Implants

While the majority of cochlear implant recipients benefit from the device, it remains difficult to estimate the degree of benefit for a specific patient prior to implantation. Using data from 2,735 cochlear-implant recipients from across three clinics, the largest retrospective study of cochlear-implant outcomes to date, we investigate the association between 21 preoperative factors and speech recognition approximately one year after implantation and explore the consistency of their effects across the three constituent datasets. We provide evidence of 17 statistically significant associations, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, including confirmation of associations for several predictive factors, which have only been examined in prior smaller studies. Despite the large sample size, a multivariate analysis shows that the variance explained by our models remains modest across the datasets (R2=0.12–0.21). Finally, we report a novel statistical interaction indicating that the duration of deafness in the implanted ear has a stronger impact on hearing outcome when considered relative to a candidate’s age. Our multicenter study highlights several real-world complexities that impact the clinical translation of predictive factors for cochlear implantation outcome. We suggest several directions to overcome these challenges and further improve our ability to model patient outcomes with increased accuracy.

Intelligence development of pre-lingual deaf children with unilateral cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to test whether deaf children with unilateral cochlear implantation (CI) have higher intelligence quotients (IQ). We also try to find out the predictive factors of intelligence development in deaf children with CI.

METHODS

Totally, 186 children were enrolled into this study. They were divided into 3 groups: CI group (N = 66), hearing loss group (N = 54) and normal hearing group (N = 66). All children took the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude to assess the IQ. After that, we used Deafness gene chip, Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) methods to evaluate the genotype, auditory and speech performance, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, the average IQ of hearing loss group (HL), CI group, normal hearing (NH) group were 98.3 ± 9.23, 100.03 ± 12.13 and 109.89 ± 10.56, while NH group scored higher significantly than HL and CI groups (p < 0.05). After 12 months, the average IQ of HL group, CI group, NH group were99.54 ± 9.38,111.85 ± 15.38, and 112.08 ± 8.51, respectively. No significant difference between the IQ of the CI and NH groups was found (p > 0.05). The growth of SIR was positive correlated with the growth of IQ (r = 0.247, p = 0.046), while no significant correlation were found between IQ growth and other possible factors, i.e. gender, age of CI, use of hearing aid, genotype, implant device type, inner ear malformation and CAP growth (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that CI potentially improves the intelligence development in deaf children. Speech performance growth is significantly correlated with IQ growth of CI children. Deaf children accepted CI before 6 years can achieve a satisfying and undifferentiated short-term (12 months) development of intelligence.

Outcomes and benefits of pediatric cochlear implantation in children with additional disabilities: a review and report of family influences on outcomes

The number of children with hearing loss with additional disabilities receiving cochlear implantation has increased dramatically over the past decade. However, little is known about their auditory and speech and language development following implantation. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effects of cochlear implantation on the most common genetic and developmental disorders in children with hearing loss. Benefits of cochlear implantation for children with autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, CHARGE syndrome, cerebral palsy, learning disorders, Usher syndrome, Waardenburg syndrome, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder are reviewed. Our review indicates that children with hearing loss and additional disabilities benefit from cochlear implantation, especially when implanted early. Thus, early interventions seem as important for these children as for deaf children without additional disabilities. Comparisons of outcomes across these disabilities indicate that children with little to no cognitive impairment (eg, Waardenburg sydrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) have better outcomes than those with greater deficits in intellectual functioning (eg, autism, CHARGE syndrome). In addition, parents of children with hearing loss and additional disabilities report higher levels of parenting stress and greater child behavior problems than those without comorbid diagnoses. However, these parents are as sensitive when interacting with their children as parents with typically developing children using cochlear implantation. Given these results, it is critical to evaluate these children's developmental milestones to provide early implantation and intervention, appropriately counsel families regarding realistic expectations for the implant, and facilitate family adaptation.