Single‐sided deafness and cochlear implantation in congenital and acquired hearing loss in children

Macías, Ángel Ramos; Barreiro, Silvia Borkoski; González, J. Segura; Martínez, Isabel de Miguel; Miguel, Ángel Ramos de

doi:10.1111/coa.13245

Cited by 35 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1,4,6,18 Similarly, some children with single-sided deafness have obtained significant audiological and subjective benefits from cochlear implantation. 4,5,19 Unlike the contralateral routing of signal and BAHA devices, cochlear implantation helps patients with single-sided deafness obtain bilateral input and restores bilateral hearing, rather than simply transmitting sound signals to the normal ear. 1,4 However, patients with single-sided deafness who received cochlear implantation experienced different stimulation of their ears when electrical and acoustic stimulations arose from their impaired ear and normal-hearing ear separately.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to investigate the benefit of Bonebridge devices in patients with single-sided deafness. Method Five patients with single-sided deafness who were implanted with Bonebridge devices were recruited in a single-centre study. Participants’ speech perception and horizontal sound localisation abilities were assessed at 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments was measured in three different testing conditions (speech and noise presented from the front, speech and noise presented from the front and contralateral (normal ear) side separately, and speech presented from the ipsilateral (implanted Bonebridge) side and noise from the contralateral side). Sound localisation was evaluated in Bonebridge-aided and Bonebridge-unaided conditions at different stimuli levels (65, 70 and 75 dB SPL). Results All participants showed a better capacity for speech intelligibility in quiet environments with the Bonebridge device. The speech recognition threshold with the Bonebridge device was significantly decreased at both short- and long-term follow up in the speech presented from the ipsilateral (implanted Bonebridge) side and noise from the contralateral side condition (p < 0.05). Additionally, participants maintained similar levels of sound localisation between the Bonebridge-aided and unaided conditions (p > 0.05). However, the accuracy of localisation showed some improvement at 70 dB SPL and 75 dB SPL post-operatively. Conclusion The Bonebridge device provides the benefit of improved speech perception performance in patients with single-sided deafness. Sound localisation abilities were neither improved nor worsened with Bonebridge implantation at the follow-up assessments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CI in children with congenital SSD provides some benefits of binaural hearing if implantation occurs within the critical period of auditory development. 4,19,21 The ideal implantation window in children with congenital SSD might be short, as expected, and may be at an age younger than 4 years. 18,19,21 Rehabilitation training of patients with congenital SSD with CI UAD leads to asymmetrical changes in the sound localization pathway.…”

Section: Age Of CI In Children With Congenital Ssdmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…To date, the precise end of the possible CI window is unknown. Based on most previous results, 4,18,19,21 we consider that the results by Thomas et al 17 may be too optimistic. These authors found that there was no difference in results between an implantation age of >6 years and <6 years, 17 which is debatable.…”

Section: Age Of CI In Children With Congenital Ssdmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The second point of view is that sound localization and speech comprehension in noise significantly improve in children with congenital SSD with CI. Ramos Mac ıas et al 4 also reported results in four children with congenital SSD (average age: 29 months) and showed that lateralization test results improved after CI. Thomas et al 17 reported significant promotion of true binaural hearing (n ¼ 14).…”

Section: Effect Of CI On Sound Localization Ability In Children With mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single-sided deafness and unilateral auditory deprivation in children: current challenge of improving sound localization ability

Liu

Zhou

et al. 2020

J Int Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaural time difference and interaural level difference signals are insufficient in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). This insufficiency leads to an absence of sound localization abilities and a decrease in speech intelligibility in noisy environments. SSD occurring in children further affects their language learning and cognitive abilities and their academic performance because they lack spatial abilities and binaural hearing. The early stages of central auditory system development are critical for auditory function development and morphological refinement. SSD occurring in the critical period can cause significant lateralization in the bilateral auditory pathway. This may increase the risk that affected individuals cannot re-establish binaural benefits after rehabilitation of hearing loss in the post-sensitive period. For otorhinolaryngologists, there is the concern that children with congenital SSD cannot benefit from cochlear implantation. Only a few studies have investigated auditory rehabilitation in children with congenital SSD with cochlear implantation and their results were inconsistent. The present review aims to clarify the main problems and challenges of clinical rehabilitation of congenital SSD, particularly focusing on the effect of CI on sound localization ability in children with congenital SSD.

show abstract

“…Cochlear implantation (CI) for single-sided deafness was firstly considered as a treatment to suppress severe tinnitus in adults, and, shortly after, binaural hearing re-establishment was considered as another benefit of this implantation on the singlesided hearing loss (3)(4)(5). CI as a beneficial treatment for adults suffering from acquired SSD is well-established in a growing number of countries, but there is little experience about this treatment option in children (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implants in Single-Sided Deafness. Comparison Between Children and Adult Populations With Post-lingually Acquired Severe to Profound Hearing Loss

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine audiological and clinical results of cochlear implantation (CI) comparing two populations with single-sided deafness (SSD): post-lingually deaf children between 6 and 12 years of age, and post-lingually deaf adults, in order to evaluate the effect of CI in different age groups.Design: Retrospective case review.Setting: Tertiary clinic.Patients and Method: Twenty-three children and twenty-one adult patients that were candidates for CI with single-side deafness were included. In all cases we evaluate: Speech perception thresholds; disyllabic words test (65 dB SPL) were performed in the modalities S0–SCI–SNH and Auditory Lateralization Test. The Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) questionnaire was also used. All results were obtained after 12 months of CI activation.Results: In children, the most common etiology was idiopathic sensory-neural hearing loss. They showed positive results in the Auditory Lateralization Test. In the Speech Test, word recognition in noise improved from 2% preoperatively to 61.1% at a mean follow-up of 1 year (S0 condition) in children [test with signal in CI side 60% and signal normal hearing side (plugged) 31%]. The processor was used for >12 h in all cases. With respect to the SSQ questionnaire, parents were more satisfied within the postoperative period than within the preoperative period. For adults, the most common etiology was idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Positive results in the Auditory Lateralization Test were found. With respect to the Speech Test in quiet conditions: Word recognition in noise improved from 5.7% preoperatively to 71.8% at a mean follow-up of 1 year [test with signal in CI side 68% and signal normal hearing side (plugged) 41%]. The processor was used for >12 h. In the SSQ questionnaire, the post-operative results showed a beneficial effect of the CI. No adverse events were reported during the study period. No differences were found between children and adults in all tests in this study.Conclusions: Cochlear implantation in post-lingually deaf adults and children with SSD can achieve a speech perception outcome comparable with CI in conventional candidates. Improvements in spatial hearing were also observed. Careful patient selection and counseling regarding potential benefits are important to optimize outcomes.

show abstract

Single‐sided deafness and cochlear implantation in congenital and acquired hearing loss in children

Cited by 35 publications

References 26 publications

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

Single-sided deafness and unilateral auditory deprivation in children: current challenge of improving sound localization ability

Cochlear Implants in Single-Sided Deafness. Comparison Between Children and Adult Populations With Post-lingually Acquired Severe to Profound Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About