OBJECTIVE: To assess the auditory outcome of paediatric bilateral cochlear implant in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional and descriptive study single centre analysis. Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP-II) scale and Speech, Spatial and Qualities (SSQ) of Hearing questionnaire were used.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients were recruited. Majority of the children (30.4%) rated 7 and 23.9% scored perfectly (9) based on the CAP-II Scale. The least performing children were rated 5 (average). Children that were implanted sequentially within 24 months showed median CAP-II scale of 7. No significant correlation seen between CAP-II and the duration interval, use and age of 1st CI (p > .05). The speech domain of SSQ-P scale showed median value of 8 indicating good speech understanding. The spatial hearing domain had median value of 7, quality of hearing domain had median of 8. Significant correlation seen in hearing in noise with the duration of use of CI (p
OBJECTIVE: To review surgical and audiological outcomes of COM patients that underwent CI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients above 18 years old.
RESULTS: Ten patients with complete data were included. Patients were aged 24-69 years old. Tympanoplasty and mastoidectomy were performed before CI. Imaging was performed to rule out ossifications. Eight patients underwent a standard canal wall up with either cochleostomy or round window approach. One patient had additional canalplasty and tympanoplasty and another one had blind sac procedure respectively. Analysis of the hearing aided level with CI and hearing aid showed significant benefit provided by the CI (Z = 2.803, p = .005).
DISCUSSION: Creating a dry and safe ear is important prior to CI. Definite hearing improvement is seen in all our cases that helped them to become independent again in their daily life. Hearing aid usage pre-CI might not be important as the hearing aids may continue to cause discharging ears and the benefits of hearing aids in severe to profound hearing loss are very minimal.
CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implant is safe and effective in COM patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all postlingual and cross-over recipients of cochlear implants under the National Ministry of Heath CI Programme from 2009 to 2013. The outcomes measured were surgical complications and functional outcome. Surgical complications were divided into major and minor complications. Functional outcomes were measured using Categorical Auditory Performances (CAP) scale.
RESULTS: A total of 41 post-lingual and 15 cross-over patients were implanted between 2009 and 2013. The age of implantees ranged from 3.6 years to 63.2 years old. There were two major complications (3.6%), one is a case of electrode migration at three months post implantation, and six months post second implantation. Another was a case of device failure at about one-year post implantation. Both patients were reimplanted in the same ear. There was no minor complication. The CAP score for both groups (overall) showed significant improvement with 96.4% achieved CAP score of five and above at 24 months after implantation (p<0.001). The CAP score showed marked improvement at the first 6 months post implantation and continued to improve with time in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The Malaysian National Ministry of Health Cochlear implant (CI) Program between 2009-2013 has been a successful programme with good surgical and functional outcomes among the post lingual and cross-over patients.
CASE DESCRIPTION: A 62-year-old male had left severe sensorineural hearing loss and a 4 mm intracanalicular VS. We performed simultaneous nonmastoidectomy infrapromontorial VS removal and cochlear implantation in this patient to achieve minimal invasiveness and to provide maximal hearing restoration. The tumor was removed via this corridor while maintaining the integrity of cochlear as well as facial nerves with full insertion of a medium length cochlear implant electrode. After surgery, the patient showed good hearing rehabilitation.
CONCLUSION: Simultaneous infrapromontorial VS removal and nonmastoidectomy cochlear implantation serves as an option for hearing restoration with minimal invasiveness in small VS removal.
METHOD: A total of 336 and 616 acoustic tokens were collected from six CI and 11 NH Malay children, respectively. The groups were matched for hearing age and duration of exposure to Arabic sounds. All the 28 Arabic consonants in the form of consonant-vowel /a/ were presented randomly twice via a loudspeaker at approximately 65 dB SPL. The participants were asked to repeat verbally the stimulus heard in each presentation.
RESULTS: Within the native Malay perceptual space, the two groups responded differently to the Arabic consonants. The dispersed uncategorized assimilation in the CI group was distinct in the confusion matrix (CM), as compared to the NH children. Consonants /ħ/, /tˁ/, /sˁ/ and /ʁ/ were difficult for the CI children, while the most accurate item was /k/ (84%). The CI group transmitted significantly reduced information, especially for place feature transmission, then the NH group (p
METHODS: A total of 11 parents and 8 teachers of the 6-year old CI children participated and rated the children using the School Readiness Scale to Year One. Data from 207 6-year old NH children from five states in Malaysia were also collected using the same scale which has nine domains. Results from the NH children were categorized into the 25th and 75th percentile scores to be the reference cut-offs for below average (below the 25th percentile), average (25th to 75th percentile) and above average (above 75th percentile).
RESULTS: The school readiness skills of the CI children were lower than the NH group as rated by teachers especially in the civic and language and communication domains. Comparisons between parents' and teachers' ratings for 8 CI children indicated that teachers tended to rate the CI children's school readiness poorer than that of parents especially in the academic domain. Intra-class correlation analysis revealed poor inter-rater agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that our CI children, generally, need an intervention 'bridging' program to improve their school readiness skills. Parents and teachers had different views on the readiness of the CI children at school entry level.
METHOD: Data was collected on 1085 CI recipients of as part of a prospective, longitudinal, observational, international, multi-centre, paediatric registry, initiated by Cochlear Ltd (Sydney, NSW, Australia). Outcome data from children (≤10 years old) implanted in routine practice was voluntarily entered into a central, externally hosted, e-platform. Collection occurred prior to initial device activation (baseline) and at six monthly follow-up intervals up to 24 months and then at 3 years post activation. Clinician reported baseline and follow up questionnaires and Categories of Auditory Performance version II (CAP-II) outcomes were collated. Self-reported evaluation forms and patient information were provided by the parent/caregiver/patient via the implant recipient baseline and follow up, Children Using Hearing Implants Quality of Life (CuHIQoL) and Speech Spatial Qualities (SSQ-P) Parents Version questionnaires.
RESULTS: Children were mainly bilaterally profoundly deaf, unilaterally implanted and used a contralateral hearing aid. Prior to implant 60% used signing or total communication as their main mode of communication. Mean age at implant was 3.2 ± 2.2 years (range 0-10 years). At baseline 8.6% were in mainstream education with no additional support and 82% had not yet entered school. After three years of implant use, 52% had entered mainstream education with no additional support and 38% had not yet entered school. In the sub-group of 141 children who were implanted at or after three years of age and were thus old enough to be in mainstream school at the three-year follow up, an even higher proportion (73%) were in mainstream education with no support. Quality of life scores for the child improved statistically significantly post implant compared to baseline and continued to improve significantly at each interval up to 3 years (p
STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross sectional observational study.
METHODS: Two sets of questionnaires were given to 126 parents or primary caregivers of the implantees. The first set of questionnaire contained questions to assess the children's usage of CI, their types of education placement, and their modes of communication. The second set of questionnaire was the Parent's Evaluation Of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) to evaluate the children's auditory functionality.
RESULTS: Our study showed that among the implantees, 97.6% are still using their CI, 69.8% communicating orally, and 58.5% attending mainstream education. For implantees that use oral communication and attend mainstream education, their mean age of implantation is 38 months. This is significantly lower compared to the mean age of implantation of implantees that use non-oral communication and attend non-mainstream education. Simple logistic regression analysis shows age of implantation reliably predicts implantees (N = 126) would communicate using oral communication with odds ratio of 0.974, and also predict mainstream education (N = 118) with odds ratio of 0.967. The median score of PEACH rating scale is 87.5% in quiet, and this significantly correlates with an earlier age of implantation (r = -0.235 p = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: UKM Cochlear Implant Program has achieved reasonable success among the pediatric implantees, with better outcomes seen in those implanted at the age of less than 4 years old.
OBJECTIVE: We estimated the long-term maintenance costs of CI including repair of speech processors, replacement of damaged parts, and battery requirements.
RESULTS: Forty-one parents of children who received CIs in Malaysian government hospitals were enrolled. The first 2 years of CI usage were covered by warranty. The cost increased three-fold from by 4 years of CI usage and then doubled by 8 years of usage. About 75% of parents commented that the costs were burdensome.
CONCLUSION: Our findings will be useful for parents whose children receive CI and will allow medical personnel to counsel the parents about the costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective repeated crosssectional study was conducted by recruiting patients with cochlear implants presenting to the Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia between 2017 and 2021. Basal (b1, b2) and apical (a1, a2) electrodes, representing the outermost and innermost parts of the cochlear implant electrodes, were measured at switch on and at 1 year post-implantation.
RESULTS: A total of 123 patients, with a total of 123 cochlear implant samples, were included in the analysis. We found a substantial change in electrical impedance between switch on and follow-up periods, where the impedance levels of basal electrodes decreased (b1: mean difference (MD) -1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.71, -0.54], p<0.001; b2: MD -0.60 [95%CI: -1.17, -0.03], p=0.041) and those of apical electrodes increased (a1: MD 0.48 [95%CI: -0.28, 0.99], p=0.064; a2: MD 0.67 [95%CI: 0.12, 1.22], p=0.017). We also found that the choice of surgical approaches for implant insertion may affect the electrode impedance. Cochleostomy approach resulted in a higher impedance than round window in basal (b1) and apical (a2) electrodes both at switch on and follow-up (b1 at switch on and at follow-up: p=0.019 and p=0.004; a2 at follow-up: p=0.012). Extended round window approach also resulted in a higher impedance than round window in basal (b1) and apical (a2) electrodes at follow-up (p=0.013 and p=0.003, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Electrical impedance of cochlear implant electrodes may change over time, highlighting the importance of regular impedance assessments for cochlear implant users to ensure optimal device function. The round window approach resulted in better initial and long-term impedance levels compared to cochleostomy, and better long-term impedance levels than extended round window. Extended round window approach also gives better impedance level than cochleostomy. Further research should investigate the potential interplay between surgical approach and other factors that may impact impedance levels to confirm our findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 159 patients from the Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM) Cochlear Implant Programme were recruited in this retrospective cross-sectional study. All paediatric Cochlear Implant (CI) recipients with pre-lingual deafness were included in this retrospective study. The study was conducted from January 2019 until December 2020. The pre-lingual cochlear implant recipients' data were analysed based on demographics and interval from diagnosis to hearing aid fitting and implantation. The association between the dependent variables with early and late cochlear implantation was compared.
RESULTS: A total of 83 (52%) patients were female. Chinese race constituted most of the patients, which was 90/159 (57%). The majority were from middle-income families (M40); 89 (56%). The most common aetiology of Hearing Loss (HL) was idiopathic; 139 (87%), followed by intrauterine infections, which comprised of congenital CMV; 8 (5%) and congenital Rubella; 1 (1%) and nonspecific intrauterine infection 2 (1%). The relationship between the universal neonatal hearing screening and the interval between diagnosis to implantation was significant (p=0.033). Other variables were not significant.
CONCLUSION: UNHS was a significant factor contributing to early and late implantation. The median age of diagnosis of hearing loss was 18 months (interquartile range; 15); the age of CI was 34 months (interquartile range; 24); the interval from diagnosis to hearing aid was 2 months (interquartile range; 5), and the interval from diagnosis to CI was 16 months (interquartile range; 14).
STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3.
RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39).
CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.
METHODS: A single-blinded placebo-controlled trial of surgical intervention triggered when CM amplitude dropped by at least 30% of a prior maximum amplitude during cochlear implantation. Intraoperative electrocochleography was recorded in 60 adults implanted with Cochlear Ltd's Thin Straight Electrode, half randomly assigned to a control group and half to an interventional group. The surgical intervention was to withdraw the electrode in ½-mm steps to recover CM amplitude. The primary outcome was hearing preservation 3 months following implantation, with secondary outcomes of speech-in-noise reception thresholds by group or CM outcome, and depth of implantation.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were recruited; neither pre-operative audiometry nor speech reception thresholds were significantly different between groups. Post-operatively, hearing preservation was significantly better in the interventional group. This was the case in absolute difference (median of 30 dB for control, 20 dB for interventional, χ² = 6.2, p = .013), as well as for relative difference (medians of 66% for the control, 31% for the interventional, χ² = 5.9, p = .015). Speech-in-noise reception thresholds were significantly better in patients with no CM drop at any point during insertion compared with patients with a CM drop; however, those with successfully recovered CMs after an initial drop were not significantly different (median gain required for speech reception score of 50% above noise of 6.9 dB for no drop, 8.6 for recovered CM, and 9.8 for CM drop, χ² = 6.8, p = .032). Angular insertion depth was not significantly different between control and interventional groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first demonstration that surgical intervention in response to intraoperative hearing monitoring can save residual hearing during cochlear implantation.
METHODS/DESIGN: The CROSSSD study adopts an international two-round online modified Delphi survey followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a patient-centred core outcome domain set for SSD based on what is considered critical and important for assessing whether an intervention for SSD has worked.
DISCUSSION: The resulting core outcome domain set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials and could have further applications in guiding the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Standardisation will facilitate comparison of research findings.