Cochlear implantation in children with complex needs – outcomes

• DOI: 10.1179/1754762810y.0000000009
• Publication Date: 2012-02-28T16:48:48Z
• Authors: Amy Rafferty; Jane Martin; David Strachan; Chris Raine
• Keywords: Male; Developmental Disabilities; Infant; Multilingualism; Comorbidity; Deafness; Cochlear Implantation; Disabled Children; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Case-Control Studies; Child, Preschool; Education, Special; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Auditory Perception; Quality of Life; Humans; Female; Language Development Disorders; Prospective Studies; Child

Prospective review of the assessment and outcomes of children with complex needs receiving cochlear implants (CIs) at the Yorkshire Cochlear Implant Service (YCIS).Nineteen children with complex needs were assessed pre-implant and 12 months post-implant switch-on using appropriate developmental-related audiology, categories of auditory performance (CAP), meaningful auditory information scale (MAIS), listening progress score (LiP), and meaningful use of speech scale (MUSS). Outcomes were compared with 230 children at the YCIS without complex needs.Average CAP scores improved from 0.4 to 3.0, compared with 4.2 in the control group. MAIS scores as completed by parent and teacher improved to 62 and 57%, respectively, compared with the control group who achieved 82 and 70% at 12 months. LiP scores improved from 11 to 65% compared with the control which increased from 22 to 81%. MUSS scores as assessed by parent and teacher improved to 35 and 31%, respectively, at 12 months compared with 52 and 51% in the control group.CIs in children have been shown to be cost effective and provide benefits in auditory and speech perception; however, there are few reports specifically relating to outcomes in children with complex needs. Improvement was seen across all outcome measures although less than in children without additional needs. Consideration should be given to the use of quality-of-life measurements as the development of oral communication may not be a realistic goal or accurately reflect benefits gained by the use of CIs in this patient group.