Auditory and language skills development after cochlear implantation in children with multiple disabilities Medhat Yousef, M.D., Ph.D. Consultant Audiovestibular medicine King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC) King Saud University KSA CI2019 MIAMI, USA
22
Embed
Auditory and language skills development after cochlear ... · Auditory and language skills development after cochlear implantation in children with multiple disabilities Medhat Yousef,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Auditory and language skills development after cochlear implantation in children with
multiple disabilities
Medhat Yousef, M.D., Ph.D.Consultant Audiovestibular medicine
King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC)King Saud University
KSACI2019 MIAMI, USA
Background According to the 2018 report of WHO, hearing loss is
estimated to be the fourth leading cause of disability
globally that affects millions of people around the world.
It has been estimated that approximately 40-50% of
children with hearing loss have an additional medical or
Background Recently the candidacy criteria for pediatric cochlear
implantation are getting more flexible to include some hard of
hearing children with other disabilities and complex needs.
Although some studies investigated the quality of life issues in
cochlear-implanted children with other disabilities, few data are
available regarding the rehabilitation outcomes in terms of
auditory and verbal communication skills of those children.
Objectives
To investigate the outcomes of CI children with different co-
disabilities through using the Meaningful Auditory Integration
Scale (MAIS) and the Meaningful Use of Speech Scale
(MUSS) as outcome measurement tools.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The main objective of this study is
Material & MethodsStudy Population
The study population comprised 2 groups:
1. The case group: 25 hearing-impaired children with co-disability who received cochlear implantation at our center.
2. The control group: Age and gender-matched controlgroup of 25 cochlear-implanted children without co-disabilities.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is a case–control study.
Material & MethodsStudy PopulationInclusion criteria for subjects in both groups:
1. All children should have pre-lingual severe to profoundsensorineural hearing loss and used a hearing aid for aperiod ranged between 3 to 6 months before surgery.
2. All children had used the CI and underwent rehabilitationfor at least 12 months using auditory-verbal therapy.
3. Documented diagnosis of at least one disability in additionto deafness.
Material & MethodsAuditory Skills Outcomes
Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS)
• A 10-questions tool in which parents are asked to reportthe behavior and reactions of their children in using thecochlear implant device on throughout the day.
• Its maximum score is 40 points is obtainable under thescoring system.
• There are three divisions in scoring MAIS includingreliance on using the device, alerting to sounds, andderiving meaning from sound.
Material & MethodsLanguage and Speech Outcomes
Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS)
• A 10-item questionnaire in which the parents ratespeech abilities of their children on a scale from 0 to4 (highest).
• There are 3 divisions in scoring MUSS including thesound generation, the communication capability,and communication skills .
ResultsThe disability group was subdivided according to the type of the disability into four subgroups:
Post-implantation, 15 out of 25 children in the case group made communication progress.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
All participants in were using behavior communication mode before cochlear implantation. Post-implantation, 15 out of 25 children in the case group made communication progress.
I. Auditory Skills Outcomes
Groups Aided threshold MAISMean SD P Mean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
33.54 28.00
10.53 4.77
0.77 38.540.00
3.670.01
0.99
Developmental delay (N=9)
Control (N=25)
39.5828.00
15.50 4.77
0.11 23.8340.00
14.740.01
0.006
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
49.86 28.00
13.23 4.77
0.0001 18.8840.00
15.430.01
0.001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
33.68 28.00
1.02 4.77
0.85 24.7540.00
10.400.01
0.04
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
40.89 28.00
3.58 4.77
0.0001 25.72 40.00
14.15 0.01
0.0001
I. Auditory Skills Outcomes: There was a statistically significant difference between the patients and control groups
Groups Aided threshold MAISMean SD P Mean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
33.54 28.00
10.53 4.77
0.77 38.540.00
3.670.01
0.99
Developmental delay (N=9)
Control (N=25)
39.5828.00
15.50 4.77
0.11 23.8340.00
14.740.01
0.006
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
49.86 28.00
13.23 4.77
0.0001 18.8840.00
15.430.01
0.001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
33.68 28.00
1.02 4.77
0.85 24.7540.00
10.400.01
0.04
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
40.89 28.00
3.58 4.77
0.0001 25.72 40.00
14.15 0.01
0.0001
I. Auditory Skills Outcomes:Usher syndrome subgroup has obtained the best comparable auditory skills level as the control group.
Groups Aided threshold MAISMean SD P Mean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
33.54 28.00
10.53 4.77
0.77 38.540.00
3.670.01
0.99
Developmental delay (N=9)
Control (N=25)
39.5828.00
15.50 4.77
0.11 23.8340.00
14.740.01
0.006
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
49.86 28.00
13.23 4.77
0.0001 18.8840.00
15.430.01
0.001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
33.68 28.00
1.02 4.77
0.85 24.7540.00
10.400.01
0.04
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
40.89 28.00
3.58 4.77
0.0001 25.72 40.00
14.15 0.01
0.0001
I. Auditory Skills Outcomes:The autism spectrum disorder subgroup had the worst MAIS score.
Groups Aided threshold MAISMean SD P Mean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
33.54 28.00
10.53 4.77
0.77 38.540.00
3.670.01
0.99
Developmental delay (N=9)
Control (N=25)
39.5828.00
15.50 4.77
0.11 23.8340.00
14.740.01
0.006
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
49.86 28.00
13.23 4.77
0.0001 18.8840.00
15.430.01
0.001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
33.68 28.00
1.02 4.77
0.85 24.7540.00
10.400.01
0.04
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
40.89 28.00
3.58 4.77
0.0001 25.72 40.00
14.15 0.01
0.0001
II. Language and speech outcomes
Groups MUSSMean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
25.8329.88
11.037.61
0.88
Developmental delay (N=9)Control (N=25)
12.529.88
10.117.61
0.001
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
7.3329.88
7.567.61
0.0001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
10.529.88
4.437.61
0.003
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
13.52 29.88
11.05 7.61 0.0001
II. Language and speech outcomesA significantly statistical difference was obtained between the patients and control groups
Groups MUSSMean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
25.8329.88
11.037.61
0.88
Developmental delay (N=9)Control (N=25)
12.529.88
10.117.61
0.001
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
7.3329.88
7.567.61
0.0001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
10.529.88
4.437.61
0.003
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
13.52 29.88
11.05 7.61 0.0001
II. Language and speech outcomes: There was no statistical difference between the Usher syndrome subgroup and the control group
Groups MUSSMean SD P
Usher (N=6)Control (N=25)
25.8329.88
11.037.61
0.88
Developmental delay (N=9)Control (N=25)
12.529.88
10.117.61
0.001
Autism (N=6)Control (N=25)
7.3329.88
7.567.61
0.0001
ADHD (N=4)Control (N=25)
10.529.88
4.437.61
0.003
Total
Patients (N=25)Control (N=25)
13.52 29.88
11.05 7.61 0.0001
Summary & ConclusionHearing-impaired children with co-disabilities can demonstrate somebenefits from receiving CI including not only the auditory skills but alsothe communicative and language acquisition skills.
However, those benefits are limited and cannot be compared to the outcomes obtained in hearing-impaired children without additional disabilities.
Cochlear implantation decision for those group of children shouldbe cautiously considered and studied on an individual basis
according to the potential excepted benefits for each case.