Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 1, pp 49–55 | Cite as

Auditory and language skills development after cochlear implantation in children with multiple disabilities

  • Tamer A. MesallamEmail author
  • Medhat Yousef
  • Ayna Almasaad
Otology

Abstract

Background

Cochlear implantation (CI) in children with additional disabilities can be a fundamental and supportive intervention. Although, there may be some positive impacts of CI on children with multiple disabilities such as better outcomes of communication skills, development, and quality of life, the families of those children complain from the post-implant habilitation efforts that considered as a burden.

Objective

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.

Methods

The study sample comprised 25 hearing-impaired children with co-disability who received cochlear implantation. Age and gender-matched control group of 25 cochlear-implanted children without any other disability has been also included. The participants’ auditory skills and speech outcomes were assessed using MAIS and MUSS tests.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference in the different outcomes measure between the two groups. However, the outcomes of some multiple disabilities subgroups were comparable to the control group. Around 40% of the participants with co-disabilities experienced advancement in their methods of communication from behavior to oral mode.

Conclusion

Cochlear-implanted children with multiple disabilities showed variable degrees of auditory and speech outcomes. The degree of benefits depends on the type of the co-disability. Long-term follow-up is recommended for those children.

Keywords

Children with disabilities Hearing impairment Cochlear implants Language development 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, king Saud University for funding through Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2018) Addressing the rising prevalence of hearing loss. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gallaudet-Research-Institute (2013) 2011–2012 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Gallaudet Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    3 Szymanski CA, Brice PJ, Lam KH, Hotto SA (2012) Deaf children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 42:2027–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisenberg LS (2017) Clinical management of children with cochlear implants, 2nd edn. Plural Publishing Inc., San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards LC (2007) Children with cochlear implants and complex needs: a review of outcome research and psychological practice. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 12:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards L, Hill T, Mahon M (2012) Quality of life in children and adolescents with cochlear implants and additional needs. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76:851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zaidman-Zait A, Curle D, Jamieson JR, Chia R, Kozak FK (2015) Cochlear implantation among deaf children with additional disabilities: parental perceptions of benefits, challenges, and service provision. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2015;20:41–50Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    8 Berrettini S, Forli F, Genovese E, Santarelli R, Arslan E, Chilosi AM, Cipriani P (2008) Cochlear implantation in deaf children with associated disabilities: challenges and outcomes. Int J Audiol 47:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiley S, Jahnke M, Meinzen-Derr J, Choo D (2005) Perceived qualitative benefits of cochlear implants in children with multi-handicaps. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 69:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robbins AM, Osberger MJ (1991) Meaningful use of speech scale (muss). American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW (1991) Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Am J Otol 12 Suppl:144–150Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corrales CE, Oghalai JS (2013) Cochlear implant considerations in children with additional disabilities. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep 1:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shintani K, Shechtman DL, Gurwood AS (2009) Review and update: current treatment trends for patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Optometry 80:384–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    14 Mathur P, Yang J (2015) Usher syndrome: hearing loss, retinal degeneration and associated abnormalities. Biochim Biophys Acta 1852:406–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Kashlan HK, Boerst A, Telian SA (2001) Multichannel cochlear implantation in visually impaired patients. Otol Neurotol 22:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alzhrani F, Alhussini R, Hudeib R, Alkaff T, Islam T, Alsanosi A (2018) The outcome of cochlear implantation among children with genetic syndromes. Eur Arch otorhinolaryngol 275:365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu XZ, Angeli SI, Rajput K, Yan D, Hodges AV, Eshraghi A, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ (2008) Cochlear implantation in individuals with usher type 1 syndrome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 72:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jatana KR, Thomas D, Weber L, Mets MB, Silverman JB, Young NM (2013) Usher syndrome: characteristics and outcomes of pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 34:484–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    19 Shevell M, Ashwal S, Donley D, Flint J, Gingold M, Hirtz D, Majnemer A, Noetzel M, Sheth RD, Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of N (2003) Practice Committee of the Child Neurology S: practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay: report of the quality standards subcommittee of the american academy of neurology and the practice committee of the child neurology society. Neurology 60:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    20 Edwards LC, Frost R, Witham F (2006) Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 70:1593–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    21 Holt RF, Kirk KI (2005) Speech and language development in cognitively delayed children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 26:132–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    22 Hiraumi H, Yamamoto N, Sakamoto T, Yamaguchi S, Ito J (2013) The effect of pre-operative developmental delays on the speech perception of children with cochlear implants. Auris Nasus Larynx 40:32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    23 Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA (2004) Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Wahington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cruz I, Vicaria I, Wang NY, Niparko J, Quittner AL, Team CDI (2012) Language and behavioral outcomes in children with developmental disabilities using cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 33:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daneshi A, Hassanzadeh S (2007) Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf persons with additional disability. J Laryngol Otol 121:635–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pundir M, Nagarkar AN, Panda NK (2007) Intervention strategies in children with cochlear implants having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 71:985–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Research Chair of Voice, Swallowing, and Communication Disorders, ENT Department, College of MedicineKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Audiology Unit, King Abdullah Ear Specialist CenterKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Audiology Unit, ENT Department, College of MedicineMenoufia UniversityShebin AlkoumEgypt

Personalised recommendations