International Journal of Head and Neck Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Factors Affecting Short-term Outcome of Cochlear Implant: A Retrospective cum Prospective Study

Aditi Sharma, Ankit Agarwal

Keywords : Cochlear implant, Sensorineural hearing loss, Speech rehabilitation

Citation Information : Sharma A, Agarwal A. Factors Affecting Short-term Outcome of Cochlear Implant: A Retrospective cum Prospective Study. Int J Head Neck Surg 2022; 13 (3):83-87.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10001-1538

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-10-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The fundamental aim of this study is to determine the factors affecting the audiological, speech, and language-related short-term outcomes achieved by the recipients of cochlear implants (CI) and to assess the category of auditory performance (CAP), speech intelligibility rating (SIR), and meaningful auditory integration scale (MAIS) scores on various factors to calculate the outcome. Materials and methods: This study was a hospital-based retrospective cum prospective study carried out in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Government Medical College (GMC), Kota, from May 2018 to June 2020 in a sample size of 15 patients who underwent CI with satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria with written informed consent and follow-up for 12 months. Three scoring systems are used for evaluation: revised CAP score, SIR of ODonoghue, and MAIS. A total of six factors are considered, and for all, the relationship with outcome postimplant is calculated using three scores (CAP, SIR, and MAIS). The statistical tests applied are the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, Spearman's rho test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and tables are computed using Microsoft Excel. Results: Factor 1: relationship with a common cause of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL)—children having a history of postnatal infection shows significant (p-value = 0.01) poor outcome. Factor 2: relationship with an abnormality of the inner ear shows significant (p-value 0.03, 0.077, and 0.033 for CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores, respectively) poor outcome. Factor 3: relationship with a duration of implant use—with time, CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores improve significantly (p-value 0.001, 0.0169, and 0.001 for CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores, respectively), with the best score at 12 months postimplant. Factor 4: relationship with parent's education level—no significant (p-value 1.0, 0.70, and 0.33 for CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores, respectively) difference seen. Factor 5: relationship with speech rehabilitation—no significant (p-value 0.833, 0.833, and 0.467 for CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores, respectively) difference seen. Factor 6: relationship with rural vs urban population—no significant (p-value 0.837, 0.782, and 1.02 for CAP, SIR, and MAIS scores, respectively) difference seen. Conclusion: Patients with a history of postnatal infection and inner ear abnormality had a poor outcome which improved with time post-CI. Clinical significance: This study concludes on the factors which affect the outcome post-CI and thus help to improve the results of cochlear implantation.


PDF Share
  1. Gleeson MJ, Clarke RC (editors). Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery. 7th ed. vol. 1. p. 860–861.
  2. http://www.indiahospitaltour.com/ENT/cochlear-implant-surgery-india.html
  3. Ramsden RT. Prognosis after cochlear implantation. BMJ 2004;328(7437):419–420. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7437.419
  4. Isaiah A, Vongpaisal T, King AJ, et al. Multisensory training improves auditory spatial processing following bilateral cochlear implantation. J Neurosci 2014;34(33):11119–11130. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4767-13.2014
  5. Mathur P, Yang J. Usher syndrome: hearing loss, retinal degeneration and associated abnormalities. Biochim Biophys Acta 2015;1852(3): 406–420. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.11.02
  6. Ramsden R, Graham J. Cochlear implantation: a safe and cost effective treatment for profoundly deaf adults and children. BMJ 1995;311(7020):1588.
  7. Rubinstein JT. Cochlear implants: the hazards of unexpected success. CMAJ 2012;184(12):1343–1344. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111743
  8. Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd. Maximizing cochlear implant patients’ performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear Res 2008;242(1-2):198–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.010
  9. O'Donoghue GM. Cochlear implants in children. J R Soc Med 1999;20(5):419–425.
  10. Dhooge I, Buchman C, Sennaroglu L, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in cochlear implantation. Int J Otolaryngol 2011;2011:438696. DOI: 10.1155/2011/438696
  11. Swami H, James E, Sabrigirish K, et al. A study to determine factors influencing outcomes of paediatric cochlear implants. Med J Armed Forces India 2013;69(4):366–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2012.10.008
  12. Xuequing C. Fei Y, Bo L, et al. The development of auditory skills in young children with modini dysplasia after cochlear implantation. PloS One 2014;9(9):e108–079. DOI: 10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007
  13. LeMasurier M, Gillespie PG. Hair-cell mechanotransduction and cochlear amplification. Neuron 2005;48(3):403–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.017
  14. Eatock RA, Songer JE. Vestibular hair cells and afferents: two channels for head motion signals. Annu Rev Neurosci 2011;34(1):501–534. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113710
  15. Khan S, Chang R. Anatomy of the vestibular system: a review. Neuro Rehabilitation 2013;32(3):437–443. DOI: 10.3233/NRE-130866
  16. Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996;1(5):293–306. DOI: 10.1159/000259212
  17. Holden LK, Firszt JB, Reeder RM, et al. Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implant recipients implanted with a perimodiolar electrode array located in scala tympani. Otol Neurotol 2016;37(10):1662–1668. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001241
  18. Suh MW, Cho EK, Kim BJ, et al. Long term outcomes of early cochlear implantation in Korea. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2009;2(3):120–125. DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2009.2.3.120
  19. Sharma S, Bhatia K, Singh S, et al. Impact of socioeconomic factors on paediatric cochlear implant outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;102:90–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.09.010
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.