Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery

Korean Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (대한이비인후과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Early Linguistic Developments of Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantees

양이 동시 인공와우 사용자의 조기 언어발달

  • Suh, Michelle J. (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Hyun-Jin (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Hyun Seung (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital)
  • 서지영 (연세대학교 의과대학 이비인후과학교실) ;
  • 이현진 (경상대학교 창원병원 이비인후과) ;
  • 최현승 (국민건강보험 일산병원 이비인후과)
  • Received : 2017.09.25
  • Accepted : 2018.01.23
  • Published : 2018.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives The present study aimed to compare receptive and expressive language development in children who have undergone simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (SCI) and those who have undergone bimodal stimulation (unilateral CI+ hearing aid). Subjects and Method In a retrospective analysis of clinical data, 15 pediatric patients who have received SCI and nine patients who have received bimodal stimulation (BM group) were enrolled. CI was performed for all patients at 24 months of age. Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scores, Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS) scores, and developmental quotients (DQ) for expressive and receptive language were compared between the groups at 12 month of follow-up. The Percentage of Consonants Correct (PCC) of children evaluated at 4 years old was also compared. Results At 12 months of follow-up, significantly greater improvements in CAP scores (${\Delta}4.25{\pm}0.5$) were noted in the SCI group compared to the BM group (${\Delta}3.56{\pm}0.88$, p=0.041). Significantly greater improvements in IT-MAIS scores were also noted in the SCI group (${\Delta}36.17{\pm}4.09$) than in the BM group (${\Delta}30.17{\pm}2.91$, p=0.004). The DQ of receptive language was higher in the SCI group than in the BM group ($87.6{\pm}15.4%$ vs. $75.5{\pm}12.0%$, p=0.023) at 12 months of follow-up. Moreover, early SCI was associated with better receptive language skills. PCC index of children at 4 years old was higher in the SCI group than in the BM group ($88.5{\pm}13.2%$ vs. $62{\pm}15.8%$, p=0.014). Earlier SCI was associated with even greater improvements. Conclusion Bilateral SCI is associated with significant improvements in language development when compared with bimodal stimulation. Earlier SCI was associated with better outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Rescorla L. The language development surveya screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. J Speech Hear Disord 1989;54(4):587-99. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5404.587
  2. Bates E, Dale PS, Thal D. Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In: Fletcher P, MacWhinney B, editors. The Handbook of Child Language. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995. p.96-151.
  3. Toppelberg CO, Shapiro T. Language disorders: a 10-year research update review. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2000;39(2):143-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200002000-00011
  4. Geers AE, Moog JS. Factors predictive of the development of literacy in profoundly hearing-impaired adolescents. Volta Rev 1989;91:69-86.
  5. Moeller MP, Osberger MJ, Eccarius M. Language and learning skills of hearing-impaired students. receptive language skills. ASHA Monogr 1986;(23):41-53.
  6. Levitt H, McGarr N, Geffner D. Development of language and communication skills in hearing-impaired children. introduction. ASHA Monogr 1987;(26):1-8.
  7. Quigley SP. Environment and communication in the language development of deaf children. In: Bradford LJ, Hardy WG, editors. Hearing and Hearing Impairment. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton;1979. p.287-98.
  8. Kennedy CR, McCann DC, Campbell MJ, Law CM, Mullee M, Petrou S, et al. Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. N Engl J Med 2006;354(20):2131-41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054915
  9. Ptok M. Early detection of hearing impairment in newborns and infants. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108(25):426-31.
  10. Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr. CI in children younger than 12 months. Pediatrics 2005;116(4):e487-93. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0282
  11. Svirsky MA, Teoh SW, Neuburger H. Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at CI. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9(4):224-33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078392
  12. Cheng AK, Grant GD, Niparko JK. Meta-analysis of pediatric cochlear implant literature. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:124-8.
  13. Bauer PW, Sharma A, Martin K, Dorman M. Central auditory development in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132(10):1133-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.132.10.1133
  14. Gordon KA, Valero J, Papsin BC. Binaural processing in children using bilateral cochlear implants. Neuroreport 2007;18(6):613-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280b10c15
  15. Salloum CA, Valero J, Wong DD, Papsin BC, van Hoesel R, Gordon KA. Lateralization of interimplant timing and level differences in children who use bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2010;31(4):441-56. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f228
  16. Marsella P, Giannantonio S, Scorpecci A, Pianesi F, Micardi M, Resca A. Role of bimodal stimulation for auditory-perceptual skills development in children with a unilateral cochlear implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2015;35(6):442-8.
  17. Sarant J, Harris D, Bennet L, Bant S. Bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants in children: a study of spoken language outcomes. Ear Hear 2014;35(4):396-409. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000022
  18. Ching TY, Day J, Van Buynder P, Hou S, Zhang V, Seeto M, et al. Language and speech perception of young children with bimodal fitting or bilateral cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2014;15 Suppl 1:S43-6. https://doi.org/10.1179/1467010014Z.000000000168
  19. Kim YT. Content and reliability analyses of the Sequenced Language Scale for Infants (SELSI). Commun Sci Disord 2002;7(2):1-23.
  20. Archbold S, Lutman ME, Marshall DH. Categories of auditory performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:312-4.
  21. Zimmerman-Phillips S, Robbins AM, Osberger MJ. Assessing cochlear implant benefit in very young children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000;185:42-3.
  22. Shriberg LD, Kwiatkowski J. Phonological disorders I: a diagnostic classification system. J Speech Hear Disord 1982;47(3):226-41. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4703.226
  23. Wie OB. Language development in children after receiving bilateral cochlear implants between 5 and 18 months. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74(11):1258-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.026
  24. Brown KD, Balkany TJ. Benefits of bilateral CI: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;15(5):315-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282ef3d3e
  25. Gordon KA, Wong DD, Papsin BC. Cortical function in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants simultaneously or after a period of interimplant delay. Otol Neurotol 2010;31(8):1293-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e8f965
  26. Gordon KA, Wong DD, Papsin BC. Bilateral input protects the cortex from unilaterally-driven reorganization in children who are deaf. Brain 2013;136(Pt 5):1609-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt052
  27. Offeciers E, Morera C, Muller J, Huarte A, Shallop J, Cavalle L. International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125(9):918-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480510044412
  28. Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int 2009;10 Suppl 1:96-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cii.398
  29. Nittrouer S, Chapman C. The effects of bilateral electric and bimodal electric--acoustic stimulation on language development. Trends Amplif 2009;13(3):190-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713809346160
  30. Moberly AC, Lowenstein JH, Nittrouer S. Early bimodal stimulation benefits language acquisition for children with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016;37(1):24-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000871
  31. Ching TY, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review. Trends Amplif 2007;11(3):161-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713807304357
  32. Ching TY. The evidence calls for making binaural-bimodal fittings routine. Hear J 2005;58(11):32-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000286404.64930.a8
  33. Fenson L, Dale PS, Reznick JS, Bates E, Thal DJ, Pethick SJ. Variability in early communicative development. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1994;59(5):1-173; discussion 174-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb00169.x
  34. Leigh J, Dettman S, Dowell R, Briggs R. Communication development in children who receive a cochlear implant by 12 months of age. Otol Neurotol 2013;34(3):443-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182814d2c
  35. Dettman SJ, Dowell RC, Choo D, Arnott W, Abrahams Y, Davis A, et al. Long-term communication outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants younger than 12 months: a multicenter study. Otol Neurotol 2016;37(2):e82-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000915
  36. Dimitrijevic A, John MS, Van Roon P, Purcell DW, Adamonis J, Ostroff J, et al. Estimating the audiogram using multiple auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 2002;13(4):205-24.
  37. Ahn JH, Lee HS, Kim YJ, Yoon TH, Chung JW. Comparing pure-tone audiometry and auditory steady state response for the measurement of hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136(6):966-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.12.008
  38. van der Drift JF, Brocaar MP, van Zanten GA. The relation between the pure-tone audiogram and the click auditory brainstem response threshold in cochlear hearing loss. Audiology 1987;26(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.3109/00206098709078402
  39. Berlin CI, Hood L, Morlet T, Rose K, Brashears S. Auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony: diagnosis and management. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2003;9(4):225-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.10084