Cochlear implantation is an effective way to rehabilitate children with severe hearing loss

Introduction. Cochlear implantation (CI) is the most effective way of rehabilitation for children with profound hearing loss. Choosing the settings of the CI processor is an important task, because the child’s speech intelligibility and understanding depend on the parameters of processor stimulation, and, consequently, the subsequent auditory-speech development and integration of the child into society.

Aim. To evaluate auditory and speech development in a group of children aged from 3 to 14 years using different CI systems: Medel, Advanced Bionics, Cochlear, Nurotron, Oticon and Neurelec by using the MUSS Scale (Meaningful Use of Speech Scale) and the method of speech audiometry in a free field sound.

Materials and methods. The study includes 82 children with CI. The children received complaints, medical history, examination of ENT organs, consultation with a surdo teacher, setting of the CI processor, assessment of speech intelligibility by using speech audiometry in a free field (n = 82) during the process of setting the CI processor and after setting. In a group of 56 children (n = 56) of preschool age from 5 to 7 years, parents answered the questions by using the MUSS Scale (Meaningful Use of Speech Scale).

Results. According to speech audiometry data, the intelligibility of monosyllabic words in the free field was 70.85 ± 1.44%, and of multisyllabic words – 74.51 ± 1.60%. The results of speech intelligibility after setting the CI processor significantly improved and amounted to: monosyllabic words – 76.95 ± 1.31% (p < 0.01), and multisyllabic words – 83.78 ± 1.43% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion. The Scale of Meaningful Speech Use (MUSS) is a simple tool for assessing the development of speech in cochlear implanted preschool children. Speech audiometry in a free field can be used to assess the level of speech intelligibility and to determine the parameters of speech processor stimulation.

1. O’Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM. Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation. Lancet. 2000;356(9228):466–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02555-1.

2. Daikhes NA, Machalov AS, Balakina AV, Kuznetsov AO, Korobkin AS, Narimanov RA et al. Audiological features of the management of patients who underwent surgical interventions on the structures of the middle ear during the use of the cochlear implantation system. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2022;21(4):103–112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2022-4-103-112.

3. Kuzovkov VE, Sugarova SB, Kantemirova RK, Lilenko SV, Chernushevich II, Lilenko AS et al. Cochlear implantation as a method of auditory rehabilitation in different age groups. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya . 2022;21(2):70–79. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2022-2-70-79.

4. Kelsall D, Lupo J, Biever A. Longitudinal outcomes of cochlear implantation and bimodal hearing in a large group of adults: A multicenter clinical study. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021;42(1):102773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102773.

5. Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M, Lee J, Rao M, Lau J, Poe DS. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(3):265–272. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1744.

6. Shaporova AV, Klyachko DS, Preobrazhenskaya YuS, Kuzovkov VE, Sugarova SB, Shcherbakova YaL. Determination of early connection in cochlear implant patients. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2022;21(4):92–97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18692/18104800-2022-4-92-9.

7. Swami H, James E, Sabrigirish K, Sigh SK, Ohal M. A study to determine factors influencing outcomes of paediatric cochlear implants. Med J Armed Forces India. 2013;69(4):366–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2012.10.008.

8. Таварткиладзе ГА. Кохлеарная имплантация. М.: Святигор пресс; 2004. 84 c. Режим доступа: https://www.elibrary.ru/qlgdfx.

9. Eisenberg LS. Clinical Management of children with cochlear implants. San Diego-Oxford-Melbourne: Plural Publishing; 2009. 692 p. Available at: https://archive.org/details/clinicalmanageme0000unse_d5a1.

10. Brown CJ, Huges ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processors: data from adults. Ear Hear. 2000;21(2):151–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200004000-00009.

11. Dillier N, Lai WK, Almqvist B, Frohne C, Muller-Deile J, Stecker H, von Wallenberg EL. Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryng. 2002;111:407–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940211100505.

12. Bakhshinyan VV. Current trends and prospects of using neural response telemetry in the rehabilitation of patients after cochlear implantation. Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringologii. 2014;(2):21–25. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.mediasphera.ru/issues/vestnik-otorinolaringologii/2014/2/030042-4668201425.

13. González RIB, Castillo SC, Lee GR. Parameter fitting for cochlear implant. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2017;74(1):65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmhimx.2016.10.009.

14. Klyachko DS, Pashkov AV, Gadaleva SV, Naumova IV. The electrically evoked compound action potential of the auditory nerve. Literature review. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2018;4(95):99–120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2018-4-99-120.

15. Дайхес НА, Пашков АВ, Петров СМ, Янов ЮК. Способ настройки параметров речевого процессора системы кохлеарной имплантации. Патент RU 2325142, 27.05.08. Режим доступа: http://www.sibpatent.ru/patent.asp?nPubl=2325142&mpkcls=A61N001&ptncls=A61N001/05&sort=2.

16. Yanov UK, Pudov VI, Klyachko DS. Intraoperative stapedial reflexes usage for speech processors set up. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2012;(5):141–143. (In Russ.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ispolzovanie-intraoperatsionnyh-stapedialnyh-refleksov-dlyanastroyki-rechevyh-protsessorov.

17. Koroleva IV, Ogorodnikova EA, Levin SV, Pak SP, Kuzovkov VE, Yanov YuK. The use of psychoacoustic tests for perceptual assessment of the AI processor settings in deaf patients. Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringologii. 2021;86(1):30–35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/otorino20218601130.

18. Бобошко МЮ, Риехакайнен ЕИ. Речевая аудиометрия в клинической практике. СПб.: Диалог; 2019. 80 c. Режим доступа: https://static.insalescdn.com/files/1/3773/11906749/original/rech.pdf.

19. Goykhburg MV, Bakhshinyan VV, Zherenkova VV, Chugunova TI, Tavartkiladze GA. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological parameters in patients after cochlear implantation. Sensory systems. 2020;2(34):107–116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/s0235009220020031.

20. Tufatulin GSh, Ching T, Savelieva EE, Savelieva ES. Russian version of PEACH scale (validation and normative data). Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringologii. 2021;86(2):10–15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/otorino20218602110.

21. Королева ИВ. Помощь детям с нарушением слуха. СПб.: КАРО; 2016. 304 c. Режим доступа: https://lornii.ru/lechenie-i-diagnostika/narusheniya-slukha/reabilitatsiya-posle-kokhlearnoy-implantatsii/pomoshch-detyams-narusheniem-slukha-rukovodstvo-dlya-roditeley-i-spetsialistov/.

22. Koroleva IV, Shaporova AV, Kuzovkov VE. Development of criteria and methods of assessment of rehabilitation efficacy of deaf children after cochlear implantation. Rossiiskaya Otorinolaringologiya. 2013;(6):80–86. (In Russ.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razrabotka-kriterievi-metodov-otsenki-effektivnosti-kohlearnoy-implantatsii-u-detey.

23. Бобошко МЮ, Гарбарук ЕС, Абу-Джамеа АХ. Контроль эффективности слухопротезирования. В: Современные проблемы физиологии и патологии слуха: материалы 5-го Национального конгресса аудиологов и 9-го Международного симпозиума. Суздаль, 14–16 мая 2013 г. Суздаль; 2013. С. 109–110. Режим доступа: https://www.elibrary.ru/yolrmp.

24. Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health related quality of life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaringol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123(6):756–765. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2000.108203.

25. Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid user’s questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(02):67–79. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-174845.

26. Coninx F, Weichbold V, Tsiakpini L, Autrique E, Bescond G, Tamas L et al. Validation of the LittlEARS((R)) Auditory Questionnaire in children with normal hearing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73(12):1761–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.09.036.

27. Ching T, Hill M. The parents’ evaluation of aural/oral performance of children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18(3):220–235. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.3.4.

28. Zimmerman-Phillips S, Robbins AМ, Osberger MJ. Assessing cochlear implant benefit in very young children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000;185:42–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489400109s1217.

29. Robbins AM, Osberger MJ. The meaningful Use of Speech Scale. Indianapolis, Iniana; 1992.

30. Crosson J. Meaningful use of speech scale: application to orally educated hearing-impaired children. Independent Studies and Capstones. 1992:335. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/pacs_capstones/335/.