Transcript
  • ElizabethL.Perkins,MDOtolaryngology,HeadandNeckSurgeryresidentintraining

    UNCatChapelHill,NC

    EffectofCochlearImplantCandidacyDelayonSpeechPercepFonOutcomesinChildrenwithBilateralImplants

  • EffectofCochlearImplantCandidacyDelayonSpeechPercepFonOutcomesinChildrenwithBilateralImplants

    ElizabethL.Perkins,MD,LisaR.ParkAuD,ErikaGagnonAuD,HollyFBTeagleAuD,JenniferWoodardAuDandKevinD.BrownMD,PhD

  • Wehavenodisclosures

  • AdvantagesofPediatricBilateralCochlearImplants•  BilateralCIhasbecomestandardofcareforbilateralseveretoprofoundSNHL–  ImprovedsoundlocalizaNon–  ImprovedspeechpercepNoninquietandnoise– Reducedlisteningeffort– Languagedevelopment

  • TimingofimplantaNon•  BilateralseveretoprofoundSNHL

    – EarlierisbeQer…offerCIstarNngasearlyas6-7months–  ImplantaNonunder12monthsofageprovidestheopportunityforlanguagedevelopmentcomparabletochildrenwithnormalhearing

    – shorterinterdeviceintervalcanimprovelanguagedevelopmentandspeechpercepNonoutcomes

    •  Whataboutbimodalchildrenwithbilateral,progressiveSNHL?

  • SecondSidedImplantaNoninProgressiveSNHL•  TheidealNmingforsecondsideCIinchildrenwithbimodallisteningisnotalwaysclear

    •  BalanceofpotenNallossofresidualacousNchearingwithbenefitsofbilateralCI

    •  OpNmalNmingandcriteriaforsecondsidedCIinprogressiveSNHLhasyettobeestablished

  • WhenisitidealtooffersecondsideCIinchildrenwithprogressiveSNHL?

  • WhenisitidealtooffersecondsideCIinchildrenwithprogressiveSNHL?

    HowdowedeterminecandidacyforsecondsidedimplantaNon?

  • WhenisitidealtooffersecondsideCIinchildrenwithprogressiveSNHL?

    HowdowedeterminecandidacyforsecondsidedimplantaNon?

  • Methods•  RetrospecNvechartreview<18yearsofageofchildrenwhoreceivedasecondCIfollowingbimodaldeviceuse– Exclusions:revisionsurgery,lessthan6mouse,majorinnerearmalformaNonsorcochlearnervedeficiency

    – 60childrenidenNfied•  Highestpre-opspeechpercepNonandpost-opCNCwordscoreswereidenNfiedforeachear– Pre-andpost-operaNvespeechpercepNontesNngpreformedat60dBSPL

  • Methods•  Candidacydate:whentheearreachesCNCscoreof40%orless

    – Youngchildren:whenseveretoprofoundSNHLwasestablished•  CandidacyNme:theperiodofNmebetweenreachingthecandidacydateanddateofsurgery

    •  CNCdifference=Bestpost-operaNveCNCscoreLONGERcandidacyNmeBestpost-operaNveCNCscore

    SHORTERcandidacyNme-

  • Methods

    CNC<40% Dateofsurgery

    CNC<40% Dateofsurgery

    Candidacydate

    Dxhearingloss

    CandidacyFme

    CandidacyFme

    Dxhearingloss

    Longerdeafenedear

    Shorterdeafenedear

    Bestpost-opCNCscore

    Bestpost-opCNCscore

    =CNCdifference

    -

    Candidacydate

  • Methods•  StaNsNcalAnalysis

    1.  MulNpleregressionanalysisonCNCdifferencescoreandbetweeneardifferencesin:

    •  Interdeviceinterval•  Pre-operaNvePTA•  Ageattest•  CandidacyNme•  Surgeon,surgicalapproach,andarray

    2.  LinearregressionanalysiscomparingCNCdifferencescoresbetweenearsincandidacyNme

    3.  T-testanalysisoftheaverageCNCdifferencescores

  • Results

    Variable B SEB ϐ pIntercept -1.604 2.876 0.58PTADifference 0.039 0.073 0.068 0.598CandidacyTimeDifference -2.982 1.277 -0.547 0.023Interval 1.636 1.324 0.300 0.222DifferentArray 0.472 4.199 0.017 0.911DifferentSurgeon -1.475 4.269 -0.056 0.731DifferentApproach 6.732 4.416 0.218 0.133TestAgeDifference 2.74 3.098 0.114 0.242

    *p

  • Results3years

    R2=0.097,(p=0.016)

  • Results

    -12.00

    -10.00

    -8.00

    -6.00

    -4.00

    -2.00

    0.00C

    NC

    Wor

    d S

    core

    Diff

    eren

    ce

    (Lon

    ger-

    Sho

    rter)

    Average CNC Difference by Delay Time for the Longer Deafened Ear

    < 1 year

    > 1 year

    < 3 years

    > 3 years

    < 5 years

    > 5 years

    *

    *(*p<.005)

  • Conclusions

    •  NoaudiologiccriteriaexistforsecondsideimplantaNoninbimodallisteners

    •  WepresentspeechpercepNonoutcomesfollowingsequenNalCIoncechildrenreachaconservaNvecandidacy<40%

    •  OurresultsdemonstratedthatdelayingimplantaNonleadstopooreroutcomes,parNcularlybeyond3-4years

    •  InterdeviceintervalisnotaspredicNveofoutcomesasdifferenceincandidacydelayinthispopulaNon

  • Conclusions

    •  BilateralcochlearimplantaNonwithalimitedcandidacydelaycanallowforopNmalspeechandlanguagedevelopment

    •  SecondsideimplantaNonshouldreallybeconsideredwhenaidedspeechpercepNondeclinesbelowthepotenNalbenefitofCI

    •  ParentsshouldbecounseledthatNmeforcochlearimplantaNoniswhenthechildreachescandidacy

  • WhenisitidealtooffersecondsideCIinchildrenwithprogressiveSNHL?

    HowdowedeterminecandidacyforsecondsidedimplantaNon?

  • Thankyou

    •  Mentor:KevinD.BrownMD,PhD•  Audiology:LisaR.ParkAuD,ErikaGagnonAuD,HollyFBTeagleAuD,JenniferWoodardAuD

    •  TheChildren’sCochlearImplantCenteratUNC


Top Related