 |
|
Surgery and Functional Outcomes in Deaf Children Receiving Cochlear Implants Before Age 2 Years
S. S. Hehar, FRCS;
Thomas P. Nikolopoulos, MD, DM, PhD;
Kevin P. Gibbin, FRCS;
Gerard M. O'Donoghue, FRCS
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:11-14.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To examine the feasibility of cochlear implantation in children younger
than 2 years regarding surgery and functional outcomes.
Design Prospective study.
Setting Tertiary pediatric cochlear implant center.
Patients A consecutive sample of 12 children younger than 2 years at the time
of cochlear implantation (8 boys and 4 girls). The cause of hearing loss was
meningitis in 6 children and congenital in 6.
Interventions Multichannel cochlear implantation using the Nucleus C124M (Cochlear
Co, Sydney, Australia) device. Functional outcome was assessed using the Listening
Progress Profile and the Categories of Auditory Performance.
Main Outcome Measures Perioperative and postoperative surgical complications and functional
outcome.
Results Eight children had a completely patent cochlea. Four children required
a 3- to 5-mm drilling to reach the scala tympani because of ossification after
meningitis. Full insertion was achieved in 11 patients; the other child received
18 electrodes. One patient had temporary facial nerve weakness; 2 others had
wound edema and serous discharge that resolved with conservative management.
In the longer term, 1 child experienced a single episode of acute otitis media;
another had recurrent episodes of otitis media. Mean Listening Progress Profile
scores increased from 1 to 42 and median Categories of Auditory Performance
scores increased from 0 to 5 at 2 years postsurgery. Comparison with the scores
in the 2- to 5-year group showed no significant differences. No significant
tuning difficulties were experienced with all children.
Conclusions Cochlear implantation is feasible in children younger than 2 years without
significant surgical complications or particular tuning difficulties. Functional
results 2 years after implantation were as good as or better than those of
children who underwent implantation between ages 2 and 5 years.
INTRODUCTION
IN 1995 the US National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on
Cochlear Implants1 lowered the age limit to
2 years for cochlear implantation. The major concerns in relation to implantation
in younger children include: (1) the relatively small size of the skull and
its growth in young children, with potential surgical difficulties of access
and a possible increase in surgical risk (later complications of electrode
displacement); (2) the high prevalence of otitis media in this age group and
its subsequent related complications; and (3) difficulties in rehabilitation.
There is evidence2 that insufficient
auditory stimulation during critical periods of development leads to linguistic
and communicative deficits. Thus, it seems logical that the earlier a child
with hearing loss receives an implant the better the outcome. Therefore, the
age limit of 2 years for cochlear implantation may be unnecessarily restrictive.
The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of surgery, the postoperative
complications, and the functional outcomes in children who undergo implantation
before age 2 years.
PATIENTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS
A prospective study was undertaken of 12 children (8 boys and 4 girls)
who underwent implantation before age 2 years. All children were profoundly
deaf, and radiological assessment was undertaken using magnetic resonance
imaging. Age at implantation ranged from 17 to 23 months (mean, 20.5 months).
Duration of hearing loss ranged from 8 to 23 months (mean age, 17.9 months).
The cause of deafness was meningitis in 6 children and congenital in the other
6. Characteristics of all the children studied are given in Table 1. Children were assessed prospectively regarding surgical
difficulties and postoperative complications, tuning difficulties, and functional
outcome. Follow-up ranged from 4.0 months to 4.4 years (mean, 2.2 years).
|
|
|
|
Characteristics of 12 Children Who Underwent Cochlear Implantation
Before Age 2 Years
|
|
|
Functional outcome was assessed using the Listening Progress Profile
and the Categories of Auditory Performance. These outcome measures were chosen
because they are age appropriate for these children and are sensitive monitors
of the progress of audition in young children as early as 6 months after implantation.3-7
The results were compared with those of children who received an implant between
ages 2 and 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed using the t test for unpaired observations for normal distributions and the Mann-Whitney
test for nonparametric distributions.
RESULTS
SURGERY
The incisions used did not differ from those used in adults: an extended
endaural or postauricular incision. The pericranium was raised with the flap,
and after performing a cortical mastoidectomy, a bed (bony well) was drilled
for the receiver-stimulator unit. There was considerable variation in the
thickness of the skull, although exposure of the dura was necessary in 9 of
12 patients for the implant to be comfortably and securely countersunk in
a bony well of adequate depth. Posterior tympanotomy and cochleostomy anteroinferior
to the round window were performed in the usual way. The facial nerve was
not exposed in 11 patients, and in 1 patient the sheath of the nerve was exposed.
In all children, the Nucleus CI24M device (Cochlear Co, Sydney, Australia)
was used. After insertion of the electrode array, the receiver-stimulator
unit was secured in its bed using a nonabsorbable polypropylene (prolene)
or synthetic absorbable suture (Vicryl) suture. Additional fixation of the
electrode array was achieved using cement at the posterior tympanotomy and
synthetic polyester passed through holes drilled at the margin of the cortical
mastoidectomy. Small pieces of muscle were then placed around the electrode
array in the cochleostomy to effect a seal. Stapedius reflex levels were measured
to obtain an approximate estimate of the upper comfort levels for the implant;
integrity testing, electrically evoked brainstem responses, and neural response
telemetry were also performed. Closure was in 2 layers using subcuticular
suture Vicryl to avoid the need for suture removal. A mastoid dressing was
applied overnight, and a reverse Stenvers radiograph was taken the following
day to check the position of the device. Initial stimulation of the implant
was undertaken after roughly 4 weeks.
Eight of the 12 children had a completely patentcochlea. In 4 children,
a 3- to 5-mm drilling was needed for access to the scala tympani because of
cochlear ossification. Full insertion was accomplished in 11 children; in
1 child, 18 electrodes were inserted. Nine children did not encounter any
surgical complications. One developed facial nerve weakness after surgery
(House-Brackmann scale II to III) that was treated with corticosteroid and
antibiotic therapy and subsequently returned to normal (House-Brackmann scale
I). Two other patients developed minor complications (edema and oozing from
the wound) which were managed conservatively. During follow-up, 10 of 12 children
did not encounter problems. One child had an episode of acute otitis media
6 months after surgery that resolved with antibiotic therapy, and the child
did not experience any other infections for the following 3 years and 10 months
(until the time of the study). The other child experienced recurrent episodes
of otitis media that did not resolve with adenoidectomy and prophylactic low-dose
antibiotic therapy, so a grommet was inserted 18 months after surgery. The
child still wears the cochlear implant, showing substantial progress in auditory
perception skills. No children experienced device migration or dislodgment
of the electrode array.
POSTOPERATIVE FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME
The mean (median) preoperative Listening Progress Profile score was
1 (0). The mean (median) score increased to 28 (27) at 6 months, 38 (39) at
12 months, and the maximum of 42 (42) at 24 months. The respective scores
in the group of children who received an implant between ages 2 and 5 years
were 1 (0), 30 (31), 37 (40), and 41 (42).
Regarding the Categories of Auditory Performance (minimum score, 0;
maximum score, 7), the median (mean) score before implantation was 0 (0.2).
The median (mean) score increased to 4 (3.8) at 6 months, 5 (4.6) at 12 months,
and 5 (5.6) at 24 months. The respective scores in the 2- to 5-year-olds were
0 (0.2), 4 (3.4), 4 (4.2), and 5 (5.0). Statistical comparisons between the
2 groups did not reveal any significant differences.
COMMENT
In the United Kingdom, approximately 220 children are born every year
with hearing loss in excess of 95 dB, with an additional 80 children losing
their hearing later, usually because of bacterial meningitis.8
Many of these children cannot derive benefit from hearing aids and therefore
are candidates for cochlear implantation, which may help them develop considerable
speech perception and speech production abilities.9-16
However, several factors affect when these children should undergo implantation.
Of great importance is the issue of neural plasticity. Results of animal
studies17 suggest that initial auditory activation
of the brain leads to establishment of an intricate network linking the primary
auditory cortex with secondary, tertiary, and associated areas of the brain.
During the first postnatal week in the white rabbit, dendritic length increases
4-fold, and at the onset of hearing there is substantial proliferation of
dendrites and branches that may reach 200% of adult levels, followed by a
more gradual loss to 100% of adult levels.18
Although a vertical orientation of dendrites is present at birth in the white
rabbit, the onset of hearing is associated with an explosive elaboration of
dendrites toward the pial surface.18 Deafness
may have various effects on neuronal connectivity within the auditory pathway,
and the changes in cochlear nucleus cell size in animals were correlated with
duration of deafness.19-20 Removal
of the cochlea in young mice, gerbils, and chicks results in severe transneuronal
degeneration, whereas there is little or no change in adult animals.21 However, this degeneration does not seem to directly
correspond to any features specific to auditory system development, and it
was found to be similar in different developmental stages, suggesting that
other general systemic factors besides neuroplasticity may cause the differential
susceptibility in young animals.21 These experiments
highlight the complexity of these issues and the fact that the biological
mechanisms underlying such phenomena have not yet been defined.
Results of developmental studies22-25
in humans indicate that there are critical or sensitive periods during which
the developing central nervous system can most readily use sensory information
to form linguistic structure. These periods may vary according to the different
elements of language: for phonetic factors, 6 months of fetal life through
age 12 months; for syntax, up to age 4 years; and for semantics, up to age
16 years.2
In addition to the possible existence of critical periods for language
learning, there is a complementary argument supporting the importance of young
age at implantation. The rate of language development in profoundly deaf children
with implants exceeds that expected in deaf children without implants,13, 26 and the gap between chronological
age and language age that usually widens over time in deaf children without
implants remains constant after implantation.27
Consequently, the earlier the implantation is performed, the smaller the gap
will be between chronological and language age. Therefore, it is not surprising
that young age at implantation is an important determinant of later functional
outcome.28-31
In these studies, data were limited regarding children who received implants
before age 2 years; therefore, there is a compelling need for studies involving
such children.
Progressive cochlear ossification after meningitis is a concern that
has led many otologists to believe that such children should be "fast-tracked."
Ossification can take place as early as 2 months after meningitis.32 When early scanning reveals development of ossification,
early cochlear implantation should be considered. In the present study, 4
children had ossification, and in 1 child it prevented full electrode insertion.
Age should not be a consideration in patients with rapid development of cochlear
ossification; successful implantation has been performed in such cases even
in children aged 6 months.
Worries have been raised about the size of the skull and its growth.
At birth, the cochlea is already adult sized, but the temporal and parietal
bones grow into adulthood.33 Studies33-34 have shown that more than 50% of
temporal bone growth is completed in the first 2 years of life, but the skull
continues to grow into the late teenage years. The facial recess does not
demonstrate postnatal growth. However, the distance between the receiver site
and the electrode entry point into the inner ear will be increased by an average
of 12 mm; Dahm et al35 recommended that the
fixation of the implant in a young child allow up to 25 mm of lead wire lengthening.
Electrode migration risk in the present series was reduced by anchoring the
electrode array close to the cochleostomy. Data from a study by Hoffman and
Cohen36 using the Nucleus device show that
electrode migration is the same for adults (1.17% of 3064 cases) and children
(1.31% of 1905 cases), whereas the incidence of device migration is lower
in children (0.05% of 1905 cases) than in adults (0.26% of 3064 cases). However,
most children in the study by Hoffman and Cohen36
were much older than 2 years at the time of implantation.
The issue of the prevalence of acute otitis media or otitis media with
effusion in this age group, and subsequent complications related to infection,
needs to be addressed. The evidence37 is that
the incidence of otitis media with effusion is lower in children with vs without
implants, and the nonimplanted ear seems to be more commonly affected. Nonetheless,
concerns that middle ear infections may spread to the inner ear have been
expressed. Shepherd et al38 reported that clinical
experience and animal studies have shown that the implanted cochlea is able
to resist the spread of infection nearly as effectively as the cochlea of
a nonimplanted ear. There is, however, a vulnerable period during the healing
process after implantation. Hoffman and Cohen,36
in a review of 1905 children who received the Nucleus device, found 1 case
(0.05%) of meningitis. Lenarz39 reported episodes
of acute and serous otitis media in children with implants, but all were successfully
treated medically. He suggested that the cortical mastoidectomy and removal
of large areas of mucosa in the mastoid reduces the risk of postoperative
mastoiditis and inflammation.39 In the present
study, only 1 child encountered particular problems with otitis media. However,
the recurrent episodes responded well to antibiotic treatment, and there were
no episodes of meningitis or other complications of otitis media. The child
continues to wear the implant and derives substantial benefit from it.
Surgical complications and the feasibility of surgery need recording.
Our results reveal a low rate of surgical complications and provide further
evidence that surgery in such young children is safe. However, our implantation
center (Nottingham Pediatric Cochlear Implant Programme, Nottingham, England)
has considerable experience in pediatric cochlear implantation; the number
of children who have received implants approaches 300 (mostly children <5
years). This may have contributed to the low rate of surgical complications
because the number of complications decreases when the number of patients
who receive implants increases in a cochlear implantation center.40
Literature comparing functional outcomes of cochlear implantation in
children younger than 2 years vs older children is limited. Waltzman and Cohen41 reported similar or even better outcomes in children
who received implants before age 2 years. However, at least 1 of the 2 tests
used to assess children's progress (PBK monosyllabic word test) is designed
for much older children, and there are doubts about whether these tests are
appropriate for such a young population, especially at the early intervals
after implantation.
The present study used outcome measures designed for such young children
and compared children who received implants before age 2 years with children
who received implants between ages 2 and 5 years. However, it is a common
weakness for outcome studies not to have the same numbers of children at all
intervals, and these numbers usually decrease at subsequent follow-up. The
present study was not an exception, although mean follow-up was 2.2 years.
The results (means and medians) reveal that children who received implants
before age 2 years showed considerable progress in auditory perception after
implantation, matching the progress of children in the older age group. Although
various difficulties may arise in tuning and rehabilitation regarding such
young children, we did not experience any particular problems in these areas,
perhaps because the professionals involved had substantial experience with
young children. Moreover, the outcomes, at all intervals up to 2 years after
implantation, were comparable with those in children who underwent implantation
between ages 2 and 5 years. This becomes more important taking into consideration
that younger children usually perform worse on auditory tests and scales at
the first intervals after implantation and catch up and surpass the older
children after 2 years of implantation.28 Therefore,
it is encouraging that children who received implants before age 2 years in
the present series had no difference from the older children so early after
implantation. It will be interesting to see if, in the long term, the younger
children will surpass the older children with implants.
In conclusion, this study shows encouraging results in the cochlear
implantation of children younger than 2 years. The feasibility of surgery
has been demonstrated, with no significant complications and good early results
of tuning and rehabilitation. Further long-term follow-up is required to demonstrate
improved outcome of these children in comparison to older children undergoing
cochlear implantation.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication August 24, 2001.
We thank the professionals (audiologists, scientists, teachers for the
deaf, and speech and language therapists) of the Nottingham Cochlear Implant
Programme for their valuable contribution in the assessment and management
of the children studied.
Corresponding author: Thomas P. Nikolopoulos, MD, DM, PhD, Department
of Otolaryngology, University Hospital, Queen's Medical Center NHS Trust,
Nottingham NG7 2UH, England (e-mail: Thomas.Nikolopoulos{at}nottingham.ac.uk).
From the Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital, Queen's
Medical Center NHS Trust, Nottingham, England.
REFERENCES
| |
1. NIH consensus conference: cochlear implants in adults and children. JAMA. 1995;274:1955-1961.
ABSTRACT
2. Ruben RJ. A time frame of critical/sensitive periods of language development. Acta Otolaryngol. 1997;117:202-205.
PUBMED
3. Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, O'Donoghue GM. Cochlear implantation: auditory perception in prelingually deaf children
[abstract]. Clin Otolaryngol. 1998;23:372.
4. O'Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, Tait ME. Cochlear implants in young children. Ear Hear. 1999;20:419-425.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Nikolopoulos TP, Wells P, Archbold SM. Using Listening Progress Profile to assess early functional auditory
performance in young implanted children. Deafness Educ Int. 2000;2:142-151.
6. Archbold SM, Lutman ME, Nikolopoulos TP. Categories of auditory performance: inter-user reliability. Br J Audiol. 1998;32:7-12.
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, O'Donoghue GM. The development of auditory perception in children following cochlear
implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;49(suppl 1):189-191.
8. Davis A, Wood S. The epidemiology of childhood hearing impairment: factors relevant
to planning services. Br J Audiol. 1992;26:77-90.
PUBMED
9. Allen C, Nikolopoulos TP, O'Donoghue GM. Speech intelligibility in children following cochlear implantation. Am J Otol. 1998;19:742-746.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Uziel AS, Reuillard-Artieres F, Sillon M, et al. Speech perception performance in prelingually deafened French children
using the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol. 1996;17:559-568.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Nikolopoulos TP, Lloyd H, Archbold SM, O'Donoghue GM. Pediatric cochlear implantation: the parents' perspective. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:363-367.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. O'Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM. Determinants of speech perception in children following cochlear implantation. Lancet. 2000;356:466-468.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, et al. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci. 2000;11:153-158.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
14. Moog JS, Geers AE. Speech and language acquisition in young children after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1999;32:1127-1141.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Miyamoto RT, Svirsky M, Kirk KI, Robbins AM, Todd S, Riley A. Speech intelligibility of children with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1997;168:35-36.
PUBMED
16. Geers AE. Comparing implants with hearing aids in profoundly deaf children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117(pt 1):150-154.
17. Gibson WPR, Herridge S, Rennie M. Importance of age in the selection of congenitally deaf children for
cochlear implant surgery. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;52:78-81.
PUBMED
18. McMullen NT, Goldberger B, Glaser EM. Postnatal development of lamina III/IV nonpyramidal neurons in rabbit
auditory cortex. J Comp Neurol. 1988;278:139-155.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Niparko JK. Activity influences on neuronal connectivity within the auditory pathway. Laryngoscope. 1999;109:1721-1730.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Niparko JK, Finger PA. Cochlear nucleus cell size changes in the dalmatian: model of congenital
deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117(pt 1):229-235.
21. Rubel EW. Strategies and problems for future studies of auditory development. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1985;421:114-128.
PUBMED
22. Ling D. Foundations of Spoken Language for Hearing Impaired
Children. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1989.
23. Wallace IF, Gravel JS, McCarton C, et al. Otitis media and language development at 1 year of age. J Speech Hear Disord. 1988;53:245-251.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Werker JF, Gilbert JHV, Humphrey K, Tees RC. Development aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Dev. 1981;52:349-355.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
25. Neville HJ, Mills DL, Lawson DS. Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different
sensitive periods. Cereb Cortex. 1992;2:244-258.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. Tomblin JB, Spencer L, Flock S, Tyler R, Gantz B. A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants
and children using hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42:497-511.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Miyamoto RT, Svirsky MA, Robbins AM. Enhancement of expressive language in prelingually deaf children with
cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol. 1997;117:154-157.
PUBMED
28. Nikolopoulos TP, O'Donoghue GM, Archbold SM. Age at implantation: its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope. 1999;109:595-599.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler R, Kelsay DMR, et al. Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40:183-199.
FREE FULL TEXT
30. Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold S, Lutman ME, O'Donoghue G. Prediction of auditory performance following cochlear implantation
of prelingually deaf young children. In: Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, eds. Cochlear Implants. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000:216-217.
31. Cheng AK, Grant GD, Niparko JK. Meta-analysis of pediatric cochlear implant literature. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1999;177:124-128.
PUBMED
32. Novak MA, Fifer RC, Barkmeier C, Firszt JB. Labyrinthine ossification after meningitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;103:351-356.
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Eby TL, Nadol JB. Postnatal growth of the human temporal bone: implications for cochlear
implants in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1986;95:356-364.
ISI
| PUBMED
34. O'Donoghue GM, Jackler RK, Jenkins WM, Scindler RA. Cochlear implantation in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;94:78-81.
ISI
| PUBMED
35. Dahm MC, Shepherd RK, Clark GM. The postnatal growth of the temporal bone and its implications for
cochlear implantation in children. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1993;505:1-39.
PUBMED
36. Hoffman RA, Cohen NL. Complications of cochlear implant surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;166:420-422.
PUBMED
37. Cohen NL, Hoffman RA. Surgical complications of multichannel cochlear implants in North America. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1993;48:70-74.
PUBMED
38. Shepherd RK, Franz BK-H, Clark GM. The biocompatibility and safety of cochlear prostheses. In: Clark GM, Tong YT, Patrick JF, eds. Cochlear
Prostheses. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 1990:69-98.
39. Lenarz T. Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two years. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;52:204-210.
PUBMED
40. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH. Medical, Surgical and Technical Complications in
Cochlear Implantation in the UK 1990-1994: Report by the Medical Research
Council Institute of Hearing Research on the Evaluation of the National Cochlear
Implant Programme. London, England: HMSO Books; 1995:191-198.
41. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL. Cochlear implantation in children younger than 2 years old. Am J Otol. 1998;19:158-162.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(1):95-96.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation
Nelson et al.
Pediatrics 2008;122:e266-e276.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Central Nervous System Residua on Cochlear Implant Results in Children Deafened by Meningitis
Francis et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:604-611.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
