effect of cochlear implant candidacy delay on speech ......• age at test • candidacy nme •...

21
Elizabeth L. Perkins, MD Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery resident in training UNC at Chapel Hill, NC Effect of Cochlear Implant Candidacy Delay on Speech PercepFon Outcomes in Children with Bilateral Implants

Upload: others

Post on 21-Oct-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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