Cochlear implantation versus auditory brainstem implantation in children with auditory nerve deficiencies.
Auditory brainstem implantation
Cochlear implantation
Cochlear nerve deficiency
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
22
12
2020
accepted:
31
03
2021
pubmed:
19
4
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
18
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cochlear nerve deficiency is one of the known causes of congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Management of hearing loss in children with cochlear nerve deficiency poses a multidimensional challenge. The absent or hypoplastic cochlear nerve may prevent electrical stimulation from reaching the brainstem and the auditory cortex. A deficient cochlear nerve can be associated with other inner ear malformations, which may diminish the success of cochlear implantation in those children. Promising results in adults after auditory brainstem implantation led to the expansion of candidacy to include the pediatric populations who were contraindicated for CIs. To review the outcomes of cochlear implantation versus that of auditory brainstem implantation in children with various conditions of the auditory nerve. This retrospective chart review study comprised two pediatric groups. The first group consisted of seven ABI recipients with cochlear nerve aplasia and the second group consisted of another seven children with cochlear nerve deficiencies who underwent CI surgery. The participants' auditory skills and speech outcomes were assessed using different tests selected from the Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech (EARS) test battery. There were some individual variations in outcomes depending on the status of the auditory nerve. The mean CAP score of the ABI group was 2.87, while the mean SIR score was 0.62. On the other hand, the mean CAP score of the CI group was 1.29, while the mean SIR score was 0.42. Our results are in good agreement with the reported auditory perception and speech and language development outcomes of pediatric auditory brainstem implantation. We added to the growing body of literature on the importance of verifying and identifying the status of the cochlear nerve in the decision-making process of the surgical management of those pediatric groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cochlear nerve deficiency is one of the known causes of congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Management of hearing loss in children with cochlear nerve deficiency poses a multidimensional challenge. The absent or hypoplastic cochlear nerve may prevent electrical stimulation from reaching the brainstem and the auditory cortex. A deficient cochlear nerve can be associated with other inner ear malformations, which may diminish the success of cochlear implantation in those children. Promising results in adults after auditory brainstem implantation led to the expansion of candidacy to include the pediatric populations who were contraindicated for CIs.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To review the outcomes of cochlear implantation versus that of auditory brainstem implantation in children with various conditions of the auditory nerve.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective chart review study comprised two pediatric groups. The first group consisted of seven ABI recipients with cochlear nerve aplasia and the second group consisted of another seven children with cochlear nerve deficiencies who underwent CI surgery. The participants' auditory skills and speech outcomes were assessed using different tests selected from the Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech (EARS) test battery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were some individual variations in outcomes depending on the status of the auditory nerve. The mean CAP score of the ABI group was 2.87, while the mean SIR score was 0.62. On the other hand, the mean CAP score of the CI group was 1.29, while the mean SIR score was 0.42.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results are in good agreement with the reported auditory perception and speech and language development outcomes of pediatric auditory brainstem implantation. We added to the growing body of literature on the importance of verifying and identifying the status of the cochlear nerve in the decision-making process of the surgical management of those pediatric groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33866399
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06792-8
pii: 10.1007/s00405-021-06792-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1295-1300Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Deep NL, Roland JT Jr (2020) “Auditory brainstem implantation: candidacy evaluation, operative technique, and outcomes.” Otolaryngol Clin North Am 53(1):103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2019.09.005
doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2019.09.005
pubmed: 31648821
Glastonbury CM, Davidson HC, Harnsberger HR, Butler J, Kertesz TR, Shelton C (2002) “Imaging findings of cochlear nerve deficiency.” AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23(4):635–643
pubmed: 11950658
pmcid: 7975095
Bayazit YA et al (2014) “Methods and preliminary outcomes of pediatric auditory brainstem implantation.” Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 123(8):529–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489414525123
doi: 10.1177/0003489414525123
pubmed: 24634154
Merkus P et al (2014) “Indications and contraindications of auditory brainstem implants: systematic review and illustrative cases.” Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2378-3
doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2378-3
pubmed: 23404468
Noij KS et al (2015) “Systematic review of nontumor pediatric auditory brainstem implant outcomes.” Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 153(5):739–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599815596929
doi: 10.1177/0194599815596929
pubmed: 26227469
Wu CM, Lee LA, Chen CK, Chan KC, Tsou YT, Ng SH (2015) Impact of cochlear nerve deficiency determined using 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging on hearing outcome in children with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 36(1):14–21
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000568
Teagle HFB, Henderson L, He S, Ewend MG, Buchman CA (2018) “Pediatric auditory brainstem implantation: surgical, electrophysiologic, and behavioral outcomes.” Ear Hear 39(2):326–336. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000501
doi: 10.1097/aud.0000000000000501
pubmed: 29023243
pmcid: 5821574
Rajeswaran R, Kameswaran M (2020) “Auditory brainstem implantation (ABI) in children without neurofibromatosis type II (NF2): communication performance and safety after 24 months of use.” Cochlear Implant Int 21(3):127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2019.1690264
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1690264
Sennaroğlu L et al (2016) “Consensus statement: long-term results of ABI in children with complex inner ear malformations and decision making between CI and ABI.” Cochlear Implant Int 17(4):163–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1208396
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1208396
Govaerts PJ et al (2002) Outcome of cochlear implantation at different ages from 0 to 6 years. Otol Neurotol 23(6):885–890. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200211000-00013
doi: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00013
pubmed: 12438851
Colletti L, Zoccante L (2008) “Nonverbal cognitive abilities and auditory performance in children fitted with auditory brainstem implants: preliminary report.” Laryngoscope 118(8):1443–1448. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e318173a011
doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e318173a011
pubmed: 18496153
Faes J, Gillis S (2019) “Auditory brainstem implantation in children with hearing loss: effect on speech production.” Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 119:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.014
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.014
pubmed: 30690306
Kutz JW Jr, Lee KH, Isaacson B, Booth TN, Sweeney MH, Roland PS (2011) “Cochlear implantation in children with cochlear nerve absence or deficiency.” Otol Neurotol 32(6):956–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31821f473b
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31821f473b
pubmed: 21659925