Share this article on:

Long-term Communication Outcomes for Children Receiving Cochlear Implants Younger Than 12 Months: A Multicenter Study

Dettman, Shani Joy*; Dowell, Richard Charles*; Choo, Dawn; Arnott, Wendy; Abrahams, Yetta§; Davis, Aleisha§; Dornan, Dimity; Leigh, Jaime||; Constantinescu, Gabriella; Cowan, Robert; Briggs, Robert J.#

doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000915
Nashville CI Papers

Objective: Examine the influence of age at implant on speech perception, language, and speech production outcomes in a large unselected paediatric cohort.

Study Design: This study pools available assessment data (collected prospectively and entered into respective databases from 1990 to 2014) from three Australian centers.

Patients: Children (n = 403) with congenital bilateral severe to profound hearing loss who received cochlear implants under 6 years of age (excluding those with acquired onset of profound hearing loss after 12 mo, those with progressive hearing loss and those with mild/moderate/severe additional cognitive delay/disability).

Main Outcome Measure(s): Speech perception; open-set words (scored for words and phonemes correct) and sentence understanding at school entry and late primary school time points. Language; PLS and PPVT standard score equivalents at school entry, CELF standard scores. Speech Production; DEAP percentage accuracy of vowels, consonants, phonemes-total and clusters, and percentage word-intelligibility at school entry.

Results: Regression analysis indicated a significant effect for age-at-implant for all outcome measures. Cognitive skills also accounted for significant variance in all outcome measures except open-set phoneme scores. ANOVA with Tukey pairwise comparisons examined group differences for children implanted younger than 12 months (Group 1), between 13 and 18 months (Group 2), between 19 and 24 months (Group 3), between 25 and 42 months (Group 4), and between 43 and 72 months (Group 5). Open-set speech perception scores for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were significantly higher than Groups 4 and 5. Language standard scores for Group 1 were significantly higher than Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5. Speech production outcomes for Group 1 were significantly higher than scores obtained for Groups 2, 3, and 4 combined. Cross tabulation and χ2 tests supported the hypothesis that a greater percentage of Group 1 children (than Groups 2, 3, 4, or 5) demonstrated language performance within the normative range by school entry.

Conclusions: Results support provision of cochlear implants younger than 12 months of age for children with severe to profound hearing loss to optimize speech perception and subsequent language acquisition and speech production accuracy.

*University of Melbourne, HEARing CRC, Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital

University of Melbourne, HEARing CRC

Hear and Say Centre

§The Shepherd Centre

||Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital

University of Melbourne, HEARing CRC

#University of Melbourne, HEARing CRC, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Robert J. Briggs, ENT, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne 3002, VIC, Australia; E-mail: rjbriggs@netspace.net.au

R.J.B. has disclosed consultancy, expert testimony, and payment for lectures from Cochlear PL.

All authors have disclosed that they did not receive funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and other organizations to prepare this manuscript.

The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2016 by Otology & Neurotology, Inc. Image copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health/Anatomical Chart Company