Cochlear implant recipients experience improvement in quality of life

[jag]

Of course interest can be determined from the abstract that is what it is for! If the person decides that they wish to read more (i.e. they are interested) they get access to the full paper. There was no broad statement made from only the abstract. There is no problem with the way it has been presented.

I notice not much has changed regarding abstracts concerning CI recipients since I quit reading a month or so ago. Still not much input from those who can read the complete thing and post a quote here and there to support their statements. Some things never change.

Owen if you've looked at the complete study can you tell us how large the group was and if they are pre or post lingual or a combination of both? That seems to be what some here are wondering so if you can share that it would be nice.

 

[owen06]

Hi jag- I posted most of the participant information on post #6. All of your questions I think are answered there.

 

[jag]

Hi jag- I posted most of the participant information on post #6. All of your questions I think are answered there.

Ah, post lingual. Ok. Actually my life has improved dramatically since I got the CI. And I only had a severe hearing loss.

If you find an abstract regarding a similar study in pre linguals would you share share the link or title please.

 

[R2D2]

Hi Jag,

From pubmed....both have fairly small sample sizes though.

: Audiol Neurootol. 2008 Feb 7;13(4):257-265

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Prelingually Deafened Young Adults. A Speech Perception Study.
Santarelli R, De Filippi R, Genovese E, Arslan E.

Department of Medical and Surgical Specialities, Service of Audiology and Phoniatrics, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

The outcome of cochlear implantation in patients with deafness of prelingual onset is largely unpredictable due to high individual variability. This study evaluated speech perception performances in a group of 18 prelingually deafened subjects (aged 13-30 years) which was homogeneous with respect to duration of deafness, hearing aid use before cochlear implantation, mode of communication and administration of auditory-oral speech therapy. Word discrimination length, word and sentence identification, phoneme identification and word and sentence recognition were tested before cochlear implantation and at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years of cochlear implant use. Scores on all tests significantly improved after cochlear implantation, although mean values were lower compared to those achieved by postlingually deafened patients. Speech performances on both word and sentence recognition continued to increase over time also beyond 1 year after cochlear implantation. Moreover, scores on sentence recognition tests were significantly higher compared to disyllabic words at 3 years of cochlear implant use. The presence of an auditory input delivered by hearing aids before cochlear implantation associated with auditory-oral therapy and a good level of education may positively influence the cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Auris Nasus Larynx. 2008 Jan 11
Cochlear implantation on prelingually deafened adults.
Yoshida H, Kanda Y, Miyamoto I, Fukuda T, Takahashi H.

Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Translational Medical Science, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of cochlear implantation (CI) on prelingually deafened adults who have been trained by auditory-verbal/oral communication since childhood. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative data was investigated regarding the rehabilitation, hearing level, and educational experience of eight prelingually deafened adults. All eight patients were diagnosed with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (preoperative hearing levels were over 100dB). All used hearing aids (HA) before the age of two and were trained by auditory-verbal/oral communication since childhood. The average age of the patients at the time of their CI operations was 23.3 ranging from 18 to 29 years of age. The average postoperative observation time was 55.4 months ranging from 11 to 90 months. RESULTS: Improvement was achieved not only on the pure-tone hearing threshold, but also in speech perception on tests using the Japanese video speech discrimination score (SDS) system. All of them now use CI very well in their daily lives and play important roles in society. CONCLUSION: It was demonstrated that even prelingually deafened adult patients could achieve considerable improvement through CI when they were trained well by auditory-verbal/oral communications since childhood. The indications of CI for prelingually deafened adults must be determined carefully, but all of them do not have to be rejected only because they are prelingually deafened. In other words, CI could be recommended for prelingually deafened adult patients if they received habilitation well with consistent auditory-verbal/oral training using well-fitted HAs.

 

[loml]

R2D2 - Thanks for that. I shall read them over the weekend!

 

[jillio]

Hi Jag,

From pubmed....both have fairly small sample sizes though.

Some good examples. R2D2. In the second, I found it significant that the conclusion reached was that success was determined to be depenedent upon the participant's ability to do well with AVT with HA prior to implantation.

I agree that small sample size is a consistent problem with research of this nature. One has to wonder if the sample size in research pf this nature is intentionally being kept small during the participant selection process. The criteria used to determine participant eligibility for participation is often not reported.

 

[jag]

Hi Jag,

From pubmed....both have fairly small sample sizes though.

Thank you R2, I find it interesting that it looks like from this small sample that a deaf person who has had A/V therapy (been raised more oral?) usually does well with a CI. I suppose it does make some sense. I'll have to go explore this more I think.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Someone asked a specific question. I gave them the information.

There is nothing wrong with posting something and saying that you find it interesting. It was made very clear that rick48 didn't have access to the whole paper, that doesn't take away from interest. If the person is looking to critically analyse the paper he/she will get full access to it. Otherwise, it remains something of interest. Which also happens to be the way it was portrayed.

Also, if any one wants the full paper, I would be very happy to share. (Though I think I need to post 100 times to pm )

I would love to have a copy of it. Do you think you could e-mail it to me.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Thank you R2, I find it interesting that it looks like from this small sample that a deaf person who has had A/V therapy (been raised more oral?) usually does well with a CI. I suppose it does make some sense. I'll have to go explore this more I think.

While I am think saying that all deaf should go for AVT. What is so wonderful about AVT is that 6 of its prinicpals involve the family. If the family believes in an approach then they are going work harder at it and make it a way of life.

 

[deafbajagal]

As have I. I love my CI. I can do things with my CI that I never could do with my HA. I've certainly learned new things that most people take for granted.

I'm very curious. What kind of things you can do with your CI that the HA couldn't do? Do you mean you hear things that you didn't hear before?

 

[R2D2]

I'm very curious. What kind of things you can do with your CI that the HA couldn't do? Do you mean you hear things that you didn't hear before?

Before we had our CIs, both Deafskeptic and I suffered from recruitment. This meant that the nerve hair damage was so bad we couldn't even put our hearing aids on without suffering pain and the worst tinnitus. The CI bypassed this. So the difference between HA and CI in that case was huge. My speech sentence testing recognition without lipreading went from 0% to 80%+ within a year.

However, to compare my HAs before onset of recruitment to now with my CI, I'd have to say that the biggest difference is being able to use the telephone. I couldn't do that before. Speech sounds clearer and closer - it's less hard work to listen generally. It feels more like you have a smaller hearing loss, if you know what I mean.
Having said that, I don't think I would have been prepared to sacrifice that residual hearing at that point though as it was still useful and there was always the small chance I would not benefit from the CI. But by the time I suffered my sudden loss, I felt that my residual hearing was worthless and useless and I was very okay with giving it up.

 

[flip]

While I am think saying that all deaf should go for AVT. What is so wonderful about AVT is that 6 of its prinicpals involve the family. If the family believes in an approach then they are going work harder at it and make it a way of life.

I have seen families using AVT at home, but it did not work out, even with early implants. Some of those children have crappy speech and crappy sign. It's sad and could be avoided if early ASL was provided, too. Too much russian roulette going on here.

 

[flip]

Thank you R2, I find it interesting that it looks like from this small sample that a deaf person who has had A/V therapy (been raised more oral?) usually does well with a CI. I suppose it does make some sense. I'll have to go explore this more I think.

Yes, it makes perfect sense. The big question is who do best, those raised bilingual bimodal or oral, with CI. An editorial article in journal of deaf studies and deaf education last summer replied this question, in favor of bimodal bilingual based on all research done the last years.

Those findings we see here is curcial for audiologist and the CI industry, but not the most successful methods for prelingual deaf people, according to JDSDE.

 

[R2D2]

Yes, it makes perfect sense. The big question is who do best, those raised bilingual bimodal or oral, with CI. An editorial article in journal of deaf studies and deaf education last summer replied this question, in favor of bimodal bilingual based on all research done the last years.

Those findings we see here is curcial for audiologist and the CI industry, but not the most successful methods for prelingual deaf people, according to JDSDE.

I think we are going a bit OT here. This discussion is mainly about those deaf adults who have already been successful with AVT via HA means early on who then managed to transfer their skills to the use of the CI.

The debate as to the best model for babies/children starting from scratch deserves another thread really, because they are yet to acquire language and they are a different group from us adults.

 

[deafskeptic]

I'm very curious. What kind of things you can do with your CI that the HA couldn't do? Do you mean you hear things that you didn't hear before?

I can speak on the phone with my family and I never could do that with my HA. I also can understand most of what I listen to on the radio. Recently, I've been able to understand PA systems in stores; I didn't even realiaze that's what I was listening to at first because the sounds were so much clearer. Before I got implanted, about the only thing I could have told you about the speakers was if they were male or female.

I couldn't hear the high pitched sounds from motors so it took me a while to relearn the sounds. Ditto for sounds like s or sh.

 

[flip]

I think we are going a bit OT here. This discussion is mainly about those deaf adults who have already been successful with AVT via HA means early on who then managed to transfer their skills to the use of the CI.

The debate as to the best model for babies/children starting from scratch deserves another thread really, because they are yet to acquire language and they are a different group from us adults.

You are right, I misread some posts here. We don't need more threads going off topic, so thanks for the reminder

 

[shel90]

I have seen families using AVT at home, but it did not work out, even with early implants. Some of those children have crappy speech and crappy sign. It's sad and could be avoided if early ASL was provided, too. Too much russian roulette going on here.

That is what I have been telling them for a long time. Too much Russian roulette going on with these kids' language development. It is just not fair since hearing kids are not being put in that kind of position. :roll:

 

[jillio]

While I am think saying that all deaf should go for AVT. What is so wonderful about AVT is that 6 of its prinicpals involve the family. If the family believes in an approach then they are going work harder at it and make it a way of life.

And what is so worng about AVT is that it forces a child to survive through the use of their weakest sense and creates untold languge delays. What is so wonderful about covering your mouth when you speak to a deaf child, or turning your head so they are unable to speech read?

 

[rick48]

That is what I have been telling them for a long time. Too much Russian roulette going on with these kids' language development. It is just not fair since hearing kids are not being put in that kind of position. :roll:

Implanting a child as soon as possible after the onset of deafness and then providing that child with the appropriate oral speech and language therapy along with involved and dedicated parents is a far cry from "russian roulette" as this parent and other parents of ci kids will tell you.

 

[shel90]

Implanting a child as soon as possible after the onset of deafness and then providing that child with the appropriate oral speech and language therapy along with involved and dedicated parents is a far cry from "russian roulette" as this parent and other parents of ci kids will tell you.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it hasnt worked for all implanted children. What happens? They become delayed in language due to not having a visual access to language. U can tell me over and over again the same thing but I will never believe it until all deaf children have full access to language and dont end up with language delays. This is going to be my view and I will always stick to it..I believe in giving all children all tools not just one. Until then, it is still playing Russian Roulette.