The correlation between ECochG parameters and early auditory behavior after cochlear implantation in children

Systematic Literature Review and Early Benefit of Cochlear Implantation in Two Pediatric Auditory Neuropathy Cases

Approximately 1 in 10 children with hearing loss is affected by auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). People who have ANSD usually have great difficulty understanding speech or communicating. However, it is possible for these patients to have audiograms that may indicate profound hearing loss up to normal hearing. This disorder is prognosed with positive, intact or present otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and/or cochlear microphonics (CM) as well as abnormal or absent auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Treatment methods include conventional hearing aids as well as cochlear implants. Cochlear implants (CI) usually promise better speech understanding for ANSD patients. We performed a systematic literature review aiming to show what improvements can effectively be achieved with cochlear implants in children with ANSD and compare this with our experience with two cases of ANSD implanted at our clinic. The retrospective review of two young CI patients diagnosed with ANSD during infancy demonstrated improvements over time in speech development communicated by their parents.

Task force Guideline of Brazilian Society of Otology - hearing loss in children - Part II - Treatment

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0-18 years.

METHODS

Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians' guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association's guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

The topics were divided into 2 parts: (1) treatment of sensorineural hearing loss: individual hearing aids, bilateral cochlear implants, cochlear implants in young children, unilateral hearing loss, and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder; and (2) treatment of conductive/mixed hearing loss: external/middle ear malformations, ventilation tube insertion, and tympanoplasty in children.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with hearing loss, in addition to speech therapy, Hearing AIDS (HAs) or implantable systems may be indicated. Even in children with profound hearing loss, both the use of HAs and behavioral assessments while using the device are important.

Can Differences in Early Hearing Development Be Distinguished by the LittlEARs Auditory Questionnaire?

OBJECTIVE

This study asks whether the LittlEARs Auditory Questionnaire (LEAQ), a caregiver measure, can differentiate between the early auditory development of children with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs), bilateral hearing aids (HAs), and children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder (ANSD) who wear CIs or HAs. The LEAQ is sensitive to impaired auditory development but has not previously been used to distinguish developmental changes between groups of children using different hearing technologies or with different types of hearing loss.

DESIGN

We collected retrospective longitudinal LEAQ results from 43 children with HAs, 43 with CIs, and 18 with ANSD. The children with ANSD wore hearing technology. They were a similar age to the children without ANSD (23 months; SD = 15), while the CI group (14 months; SD = 8) was younger than the HA group (24 months; SD = 18) [F(2,98.48) = 3.4; p = 0.04]. The CI group often participated in their first LEAQ pretreatment. Participants completed between one and seven LEAQs. Scores ranged between zero and 35 (mean = 18.36). We conducted a linear mixed-effects analysis, which included age or time since device fitting, hearing type (HA, CI, or ANSD), and presence of a comorbidity as fixed effects. A secondary analysis assessed effects of device audibility, measured by the Speech Intelligibility Index or Articulation Index, and consistency of device use obtained from device datalogs.

RESULTS

Children with CIs progressed faster than their peers with HAs or ANSD [χ2(8) = 24.51; p = 0.002]. However, within a subsample that included consistency of device use (β7 = -0.20 ± 0.38, t = -0.52; β8 = 0.93 ± 0.82, t = 1.13) and audibility (β6 = -0.70 ± 1.45, t = -1.87; β7 = 0.87 ± 0.89, t = 0.98), study group did not significantly influence rate of improvement on the LEAQ. In addition, children with developmental delays in all three study groups demonstrated significantly slower LEAQ score improvement [χ2(6) = 23.60; p < 0.001] and a trend toward decreased consistency of device use [F(1) = 3.31; p = 0.07]. As we expected, children in the CI and HA groups were more likely to achieve auditory skills indicated in early rather than later LEAQ questions. There was less variability in the responses of the ANSD group [CI: interquartile range (IQR) = 9; HA: IQR = 8; ANSD: IQR = 1]. There was no connection between LEAQ growth and speech perception outcomes in a subsample [r(6) = 0.42; p = 0.30].

CONCLUSIONS

The LEAQ is a useful tool for monitoring initial auditory development in very young children and can inform early treatment decisions.

Clinical role of electrocochleography in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder

OBJECTIVES

To assess electrocochleography (ECochG) to tones as an instrument to account for CI speech perception outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Children (<18 years) receiving CIs for ANSD (n = 30) and non-ANSD (n = 74) etiologies of hearing loss were evaluated with ECochG using tone bursts (0.25-4 kHz). The total response (TR) is the sum of spectral peaks of responses across frequencies. The compound action potential (CAP) and the auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN) in ECochG waveforms were used to estimate nerve activity and calculate nerve score. Performance on open-set monosyllabic word tests was the outcome measure. Standard statistical methods were applied.

RESULTS

On average, TR was larger in ANSD than in non-ANSD subjects. Most ANSD (73.3%) and non-ANSD (87.8%) subjects achieved open-set speech perception; TR accounted for 33% and 20% of variability in the outcomes, respectively. In the ANSD group, the PTA accounted for 69.3% of the variability, but there was no relationship with outcomes in the non-ANSD group. In both populations, nerve score was sensitive in identifying subjects at risk for not acquiring open-set speech perception, while the CAP and the ANN were more specific.

CONCLUSION

In both subject groups, the TRs correlated with outcomes but these measures were notably larger in the ANSD group. There was also strong correlation between PTA and speech perception outcome in ANSD group. In both subject populations, weaker evidence of neural activity was related to failure to achieve open-set speech perception.