Performance of hearing skills in children with auditory neuropathy
               spectrum disorder using cochlear implant: a systematic review

Fernandes, Nayara Freitas; Morettin, Marina; Yamaguti, Elisabete Honda; Costa, Orozimbo Alves; Bevilacqua, Maria Cecilia

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.10.003

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Review Articles • Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. 81 (1) • Jan-Feb 2015 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.10.003 copy

Performance of hearing skills in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder using cochlear implant: a systematic review^☆ ☆ Please cite this article as: Fernandes NF, Morettin M, Yamaguti EH, Costa OA, Bevilacqua MC. Performance of hearing skills in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder using cochlear implant: a systematic review. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81:85-96. ,^☆☆ ☆☆ Institution: Audiological Research Center, Cochlear Implant Section, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, Odontology School, Universidade de São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Introduction:

Currently, there are no doubts about the benefits of cochlear implants for the development of children with severe or profound hearing loss. However, there is still no consensus among researchers and professionals regarding the benefits for the improvement of hearing skills in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder using cochlear implants.

Objective:

Review the available evidence in the literature to answer the following: "What is the performance of hearing skills in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder using cochlear implants?"

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature through electronic database consultation, considering publications in the period 2002-2013.

Results:

Twenty-two studies met the criteria and were included in the systematic review.

Conclusion:

The analyzed studies demonstrated that after cochlear implant surgery, individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder improved their performance of hearing skills and had similar performance to that of children with sensorineural hearing loss using cochlear implant.

Evaluation; Child; Cochlear implants; Hearing loss; Speech perception

Authors (year)	Journal (country) and sample number	Inventory		Speech perception test
		IT-MAIS/MAIS		GASP (word recognition)		Monosyllabic words (Open Set)		HINT
		ANSD	SNHL	ANSD	SNHL	ANSD	SNHL	ANSD	SNHL
Breneman et al. (2012)	J Am Acad Audiol (United States). 70 children (35 ANSD and 35 sensorineural, both CI users), Mean period of CI use: five years	98%	98%	50–100%	58–63%	83%	77%	–	–
Teagle et al. (2010)	Ear Hear (United States). 140 ANSD/CI children.	Pre-CI values: 5–63%. Post-CI values: 48% (1 year of CI use) to 98% (3 years of CI use).	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Kim et al. (2011)	Acta Otolaryngol. (South Korea). Six children with ANSD and four with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users.	–	–	–	–	4 years of CI use – 95% 5 years of CI use – 95% 6 years of CI use – 95%	4 years of CI use – 73% 5 years of CI use – 70% 6 years of CI use – 80%	–	–
Schramm et al. (2010)	Cochlear Implants Int. (Canada). 16 children with ANSD and 89 with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users. Mean time of CI use: 1 year 6 months	Pre-CI values: 2.5–15% Post-CI values: 75–85%	Pre-CI values: 2.5–15% Post-CI values: 75–85%	66–75%	66–75%	–	–	76 dB in a quiet condition	78.9 dB in a quiet condition
Chisholm et al. (2010)	Cochlear Implants Int. (Australia). 5 ANSD/CI children.	Pre-CI values: 6.25–18.75% Post-CI values: 37.5–87.5% (1 year of use); 57.5–97.5% (2 years of CI use); 82.5–97.5% (5 years of CI use).	–	75% (2 years of CI use)	–	–	–	–	–
Rance et al. (2008)	Otol Neurotol. (Australia). Seven children with ANSD, uni- (n = 4) or bilateral (n = 3) CI users; ten children with bilateral ANSD using HA; three ANSD/CI children and contralateral HA users; 37 children with sensorineural hearing loss using CI.	–	–	–	–	HA users: 24.8–55.1%. IC users: 20.6–59.6%. Both with 5 years of CI use	53–83.1% 5 years of CI use	–	–
Peterson et al. (2003)	J. Am. Acad. Audiol. (United States). Ten children with ANSD; ten children with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users.	Pre-CI: 0–50% Post-CI: 70% (1 year of CI use)–100% (1 year 6 months of CI use)	Pre-CI: 0–55% Post-CI: 65% (1 year of CI use) to 100% (2 years of CI use)	83% (3 years of CI use) to 100% (1 year of CI use) Sentence understanding 70–100% (3 years of CI use)	83% (2 years of CI use) to 100% (1 year of CI use) Sentence understanding 50–90% (2 years of CI use)	100% (1 year of CI use)	96–100% (2 years of CI use)	Result of only one child (3 years of CI use). Quiet condition 80 dB Noise condition (20 S/R) 45 dB	Result of only one child (5 years of CI use) Quiet condition 80 dB. Not performed in noise condition
Jeong et al. (2007)	Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. (South Korea). Nine children with ANSD, 12 children with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users	–	–	–	–	Sentence recognition 5% (6 months of CI use) to 100% (3 years of CI use)	Sentence recognition 20% (6 months of CI use) to 90% (3 years of CI use)	–	–
Pelosi et al. (2012)	Otology & Neurotology (United States). 13 ANSD/CI children (Seven bilateral and six unilateral CI users). Mean time of CI use: 3 years 6 months	Pre-CI: 13–21% Post-CI: 45–100%	–	–	–	–	–	67 dB–98 dB Noise condition.	–
Cardon et al. (2013)	International Journal of Audiology (United States). 24 children with ANSD, 11 children with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users. Mean time of CI use: 3 years 6 months	Pre-CI: 13–21% Post-CI: 45–100%	Pre-CI: 13–21% Post-CI: 100%	–	–	–	–	–	–
Pelosi et al. (2013)	Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (United States). 16 children with ANSD/unilateral CI users, and ten children with ANSD/using bilateral HA.	Pre-CI: 13% Post-CI: 0–65% (4 years 3 months of CI use) Post-HA values: 0–72% (3 years 6 months of CI use)	–	–	–	–	–	CI users: 63–98 dB Noise condition (4 years 3 months of use) HA users: 86–98 dB Noise condition (3 years 6 months)	–
Budenz et al. (2013)	Otol Neurotol (United States). 17 children with ANSD and 17 children with sensorineural hearing loss, both CI users. Mean time of CI use: seven years	Pre-CI values: mean 0% Post-CI values: 92%	Pre-CI values: mean 3% Post-CI values: 77%	> 25% Sentence understanding 25%	> 25% Sentence understanding 25%	–	–	–	–
Jeong et al. (2013)	Acta Otolaryngologica (South Korea). 15 children with ANSD/CI. Mean time of CI use: 5 years 6 months	Pre-CI values: 2.5–10%. Post-CI values: 100%	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Alvarenga et al. (2013)	Inter J of Pedia Otorhi (Brazil). 14 ANSD/CI children.	–	–	73–100% (3 years 5 months of use)	–	–	–	–	–
Carvalho et al. (2011)	Braz J Otorhinolaryngol (Brasil). 18 ANSD/CI children. Mean time of CI use: 3 years 5 months	–	–	Speech recognition in closed set 61% Speech recognition in open set 33%	Speech recognition in closed set 71% Speech recognition in open set 29%	–	–	–	–
Fernandes (2013)	Dissertation (Brazil). Ten children with sensorineural hearing loss and 15 children with ANSD, both groups CI users. Mean time of CI use: seven years	–	–	–	–	–	–	Results of 1st evaluation: Quiet condition 60.7 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.1 dB Results of 2nd Evaluation: quiet condition 57.4 dB Noise condition (S/R) 2.1 dB	Results of 1st evaluation: quiet condition 57.1 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.9 dB Results of 2nd evaluation: quiet condition 54.1 dB Noise condition (S/R) 2.8 dB
Yamaguti (2013)	Dissertation (Brazil). 48 ANSD/CI children and 12 children with sensorineural hearing loss	Pre-CI values: 21.8% Post-CI values: 96.7% (4 years 2 months of CI use)	–	–	–	–	–	Quiet condition 58.2 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.6 dB (6 years of use) Results of 14 children with ANSD	Quiet condition 58.4 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.7 dB (6 years of use) Results of 12 children sensorineural hearing loss

Time of CI use	Hearing skills
	Children with ANSD using CI			Children with SNHL using CI
	Hearing recognition		Hearing understanding	Hearing recognition		Hearing understanding
	Words	Sentences		Words	Sentences
6 months	–	5% Jeong et al. (2007)	–	–	20% Jeong et al. (2007)	–
1 year	Monosyllabic 100% Word recognition test (GASP) 100% Peterson et al. (2003)	–	–	Word recognition test (GASP) 100% Peterson et al. (2003)	–	–
1 year 6 months	Word recognition test (GASP) 66–75% Schramm et al. (2010)	HINT-C in quiet condition76 dB Schramm et al. (2010)	–	Word recognition test (GASP) 66–75% Schramm et al. (2010)	HINT-C in quiet condition 78.9 dB Schramm et al. (2010)	–
2 years	Word recognition test (GASP) 75% Chisholm et al. (2010)	–	–	Monosyllabic 96–100% Word recognition test (GASP) 83% Peterson et al. (2003)	50–90% Peterson et al. (2003)	–
3 years	Word recognition test (GASP) 83% Peterson et al. (2003) Speech recognition in closed set 61% Speech recognition in open set 33% Carvalho et al. (2011)	100% Jeong et al. (2007) HINT-C in quiet condition 80 dB and in noise condition (20 S/S/R) 45 dB Peterson et al. (2003)	70–100% Peterson et al. (2003) HINT-C, HA users: 86–98 dB Pelosi et al. (2013) 67–98 dB HINT-C in quiet condition Pelosi et al. (2012)	Speech recognition in closed set 71% Speech recognition in open set 29% Carvalho et al. (2011)	90% Jeong et al. (2007)	–
4 years	Monosyllabic 95% Kim et al. (2011)	–	HINT-C 63–98 dB 4 years 3 months of CI use Pelosi et al. (2013)	Monosyllabic 73% Kim et al. (2011)	–	–
5 years	Monosyllabic 95% Kim et al. (2011) Monosyllabic – HA users 24.8–55.1% CI users 20.6–59.6% Rance et al. (2008)	–	–	Monosyllabic 70% Kim et al. (2011) Monosyllabic 53–83.1% Rance et al. (2008)	HINT-C in quiet condition 80 dB Peterson et al. (2003)	–
6 years	Monosyllabic 95% Kim et al. (2011)	–	The Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) adapted to Portuguese idiom by Bevilacqua et al. (2008) Quiet condition 58.2 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.6 dB Yamaguti (2013)	Monosyllabic 80% Kim et al. (2011)	–	The Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) adapted to Portuguese by Bevilacqua et al. (2008) Quiet condition 58.4 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.7 dB Yamaguti (2013)
7 years	–	–	Results of 1st assessment: quiet condition 60.7 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.1 dB Results of 2nd assessment: quiet condition 57.4 dB Noise condition (S/R) 2.1 dB Fernandes (2013)	–	–	Results of 1st assessment: Quiet condition 57.1 dB Noise condition (S/R) 7.9 dB Results of 2nd assessment: quiet condition 54.1 dB Noise condition (S/R) 2.8 dB Fernandes (2013)

Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Sede da Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico Facial, Av. Indianópolia, 1287, 04063-002 São Paulo/SP Brasil, Tel.: (0xx11) 5053-7500, Fax: (0xx11) 5053-7512 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@aborlccf.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] ^∗Corresponding author. E-mail:nayara_freitas_fernandes@yahoo.com.br (N.F. Fernandes).