Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New cochlear implant technologies improve performance in post-meningitic deaf patients

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare the performance of cochlear implantation between post-meningitic and non-meningitic patients, and to evaluate the impact on hearing outcome of technical advances in cochlear implant technology. Retrospective chart review was used as the study design. Twenty adults with post-meningitic profound hearing loss receiving unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants between 1990 and 2008 were tested. Results were compared to a control group of 46 adults implanted for a non-meningitic hearing loss, with the same pre-operative speech scores. Speech scores were poorer in post-meningitic patients compared to those of control group, whatever the duration after implantation (p < 0.0001). Speech scores of subjects implanted and fitted before 2001 were compared to those of subjects implanted after 2001, with the same duration of hearing loss. Performance improved with implants and processors available after 2001, with a magnitude of improvement higher in post-meningitic patients (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.05 in post-meningitic and control groups, respectively, two-way ANOVA). Consequently, speech scores of post-meningitic patients implanted after 2001 achieved those of control subjects (two-way ANOVA). Advances in cochlear implant technology and coding strategy improve hearing outcome in post-meningitic adult patients, who now achieve similar performance as those of non-meningitic patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thomas J, Cheshire IM (1999) Evaluation of cochlear implantation in post-meningitic adults. J Laryngol Otol 113:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  2. Proops DW, Stoddart RL, Donaldson I (1999) Medical, surgical and audiological complications of the first 100 adult cochlear implant patients in Birmingham. J Laryngol Otol 113:14–17

    Google Scholar 

  3. MacAndie C, Singh RS (2000) Meningitis and cochlear implantation in Scotland. Cochear Implants Int 1:108–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Koomen I, Grobbee DE, Roord JJ, Donders R, Jennekens-Schinkel A, van Furth AM (2003) Hearing loss at school age in survivors of bacterial meningitis: assessment, incidence and prediction. Pediatrics 112:1049–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Woolley AL, Kirk KA, Neumann AM, McWilliams SM, Murray J, Friend D, Wiatrak BJ (1999) Risk factors for hearing loss from meningitis in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:509–514

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wellman MB, Sommer DD, McKenna J (2003) Sensorineural hearing loss in postmeningitic children. Otol Neurotol 24:907–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kutz JW, Mariano Simon L, Chennupati SK, Giannoni CM, Manolidis S (2006) Clinical predictors for hearing loss in children with bacterial meningitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:941–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Philippon D, Bergeron F, Ferron P, Bussières R (2009) Cochlear implantation in postmeningitic deafness. Otol Neurotol 31:83–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Battmer RD, Gupta SD, Allum-Mecklenburg DJ, Lenarz T (1995) Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:185–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Waltzman SB, Fisher SG, Niparko JK, Cohen NL (1995) Predictors of postoperative performance with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 165:15–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G, Larky J, Lindström B, Nedzelski J, Peterson A, Shipp D, Staller S, Whitford L (1996) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol 1:293–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas SA, Sanli H, Gibson WPR (2008) Meningitis resulting in hearing loss and labyrinthitis ossificans: does the causative organism matter? Cochlear Implants Int 9:90–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beijen J, Casselman J, Joosten F, Stover T, Aschendorff A, Zarowski A, Becker H, Mylanus E (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with meningitis induced hearing loss. Eur Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 266:1229–1236

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rauch S, Herrmann B, Lynne D, Nadol J (1997) Nucleus 22 cochlear implantation results in postmeningitic deafness. Laryngoscope 107:1606–1609

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nadol JB Jr (1997) Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:220–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bozorg Grayeli A, Kalamarides M, Bouccara D, Gamra LB, Ambert-Dahan E, Sterkers O (2007) Auditory brainstem implantation to rehabilitate profound hearing loss with totally ossified cochlea induced by pneumococcal meningitis. Audiol Neurotol 12:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bozorg Grayeli A, Kalamarides M, Bouccara D, Ambert-Dahan E, Sterkers O (2008) Auditory brainstem implant in neurofibromatosis type 2 and non-neurofibromatosis type 2 patients. Otol Neurotol 29:1140–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. El-Kashlan HK, Ashbaugh C, Zwolan T, Telian SA (2003) Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children with ossified cochlea. Otol Neurotol 24:596–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, O’Donoghue GM (2006) Does cause of deafness influence outcome after cochlear implantation in children? Pediatrics 118:1350–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eshraghi AA, Telischi FF, Hodges AV, Odabasi O, Balkany TJ (2004) Changes in programming over time in postmeningitis cochlear implant users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:885–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell TE, Psarros C, Pegg P, Rennie M, Gibson WPR (2000) Performance after cochlear implantation: comparison of children deafened by meningitis and congenitally deaf children. J Laryngol Otol 114:33–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Francis HW, Pulsifer MB, Chinnici J, Nutt R, Venick HS, Yeagle JD, Niparko JK (2004) Effect of central nervous system residua on cochlear implant results in children deafened by meningitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:604–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dursin M, Arnoldner C, Stöver T, Lenarz T, Lesinski-Schiedat A (2008) Audiological performance in cochlear implanted patients deafened by meningitis depending on duration of deafness. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265:381–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bebear JP, Godey B, Robier A, Deguine O, Fraysse B, Bordure P, Mondain M, Bouccara D, Bozorg-Grayeli A, Borel S, Ambert-Dahan E, Ferrary E (2009) Speech performance and sound localization in complex noisy environment in bilaterally implanted adult patients. Audiol Neurotol 14:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Donatelli Lassig A, Zwolan TA, Telian SA (2005) Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 26:624–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’ORL et de Chirurgie cervico-faciale, AP-HP, Hôpital Beaujon, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92118, Clichy, France

    Isabelle Mosnier, Andrea Felice, Gonzalo Esquia, Stéphanie Borel, Didier Bouccara, Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan, Martine Smadja, Evelyne Ferrary & Olivier Sterkers

  2. Consultation d’ORL, AP-HP, Hôpital Louis Mourier, 92700, Colombes, France

    Isabelle Mosnier & Olivier Sterkers

  3. Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France

    Isabelle Mosnier, Didier Bouccara, Evelyne Ferrary & Olivier Sterkers

  4. UMR-S 867, Inserm/Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, 75018, Paris, France

    Isabelle Mosnier, Didier Bouccara, Evelyne Ferrary & Olivier Sterkers

Authors
  1. Isabelle Mosnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Felice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gonzalo Esquia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphanie Borel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Didier Bouccara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martine Smadja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Evelyne Ferrary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Olivier Sterkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Mosnier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mosnier, I., Felice, A., Esquia, G. et al. New cochlear implant technologies improve performance in post-meningitic deaf patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 53–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1918-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1918-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation