Educational placement of deaf children following cochlear implantation

Longitudinal outcomes for educational placement and quality of life in a prospectively recruited multinational cohort of children with cochlear implants

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to report on the educational placement, quality of life and speech reception changes in a prospectively recruited group of children after they received a cochlear implant (CI).

METHOD

Data was collected on 1085 CI recipients of as part of a prospective, longitudinal, observational, international, multi-centre, paediatric registry, initiated by Cochlear Ltd (Sydney, NSW, Australia). Outcome data from children (≤10 years old) implanted in routine practice was voluntarily entered into a central, externally hosted, e-platform. Collection occurred prior to initial device activation (baseline) and at six monthly follow-up intervals up to 24 months and then at 3 years post activation. Clinician reported baseline and follow up questionnaires and Categories of Auditory Performance version II (CAP-II) outcomes were collated. Self-reported evaluation forms and patient information were provided by the parent/caregiver/patient via the implant recipient baseline and follow up, Children Using Hearing Implants Quality of Life (CuHIQoL) and Speech Spatial Qualities (SSQ-P) Parents Version questionnaires.

RESULTS

Children were mainly bilaterally profoundly deaf, unilaterally implanted and used a contralateral hearing aid. Prior to implant 60% used signing or total communication as their main mode of communication. Mean age at implant was 3.2 ± 2.2 years (range 0-10 years). At baseline 8.6% were in mainstream education with no additional support and 82% had not yet entered school. After three years of implant use, 52% had entered mainstream education with no additional support and 38% had not yet entered school. In the sub-group of 141 children who were implanted at or after three years of age and were thus old enough to be in mainstream school at the three-year follow up, an even higher proportion (73%) were in mainstream education with no support. Quality of life scores for the child improved statistically significantly post implant compared to baseline and continued to improve significantly at each interval up to 3 years (p < 0.001). Parental expectation scores reduced statistically significantly from baseline compared to all intervals (p < 0.028) and then increased significantly at 3 years compared to all post baseline follow-up intervals (p < 0.006). The impact on family life was reduced post implant compared to baseline and continued to reduce between annual intervals (p < 0.001). At three years post follow up median CAP II scores were 7 (IQR 6-7) and mean SSQ-P scores were 6.8 (SD1.9) 6.0 (SD1.9) and 7.4 (SD 2.3) for speech spatial and qualities scales respectively. SSQ-P and CAP II scores improved statistically and clinically significantly compared to baseline by one year post implantation. CAP II scores continued to improve at each test interval up to three years post implant. Speech and Qualities scores improved significantly between years 1 and 2 (p < 0.001), but only the Speech scores improved significantly between years 2 and 3 (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstream educational placement was achievable for most of the children, including those implanted at an older age. Quality of life for the child and the wider family improved. Future research could focus on the impact of mainstream school placement on children's academic progress, including measures of academic attainment and social functioning.

Racial and Insurance Inequalities in Access to Early Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Objective

To evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and insurance status on the access to early cochlear implantation.

Study Design

Population-based retrospective analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation procedures.

Setting

State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of Florida from 2005 to 2017.

Methods

All children aged 18 years or younger in the state of Florida undergoing cochlear implantation were identified. The outcome measures were access to early cochlear implantation (before 1 and 2 years of age). Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results

Among 1511 pediatric cochlear implantation procedures with complete data, 65 (4.3%) procedures were performed by 1 year of age and 348 (23.0%) by 2 years of age. Black children (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70), Hispanic children (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94), and children with Medicaid (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84) were significantly less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age. Even when insured by private insurance, black and Hispanic children were still less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age compared to white children with private insurance. Greater racial and insurance disparities existed in access to cochlear implantation before 1 year of age compared to implantation before 2 years of age.

Conclusion

Racial/ethnic and insurance disparities in pediatric cochlear implantation can be observed at the population level. To address these racial and insurance inequalities, a multidisciplinary care team is needed and priorities should be given to research endeavors and policy interventions that target these disparities.

Long-term outcomes of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Cochlear Implant Program among pediatric implantees

OBJECTIVES

Cochlear implant (CI) greatly enhances auditory performance as compared to hearing aids and has dramatically affected the educational and communication outcomes for profoundly deaf children. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) pioneered CI program in 1995 in the South East Asia. We would like to report the long-term outcomes of UKM paediatric cochlear implantation in terms of: the proportion of children who were implanted and still using the device, the children's modes of communication, their educational placements, and their functional auditory/oral performance. We also examined the factors that affected the outcomes measured.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross sectional observational study.

METHODS

Two sets of questionnaires were given to 126 parents or primary caregivers of the implantees. The first set of questionnaire contained questions to assess the children's usage of CI, their types of education placement, and their modes of communication. The second set of questionnaire was the Parent's Evaluation Of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) to evaluate the children's auditory functionality.

RESULTS

Our study showed that among the implantees, 97.6% are still using their CI, 69.8% communicating orally, and 58.5% attending mainstream education. For implantees that use oral communication and attend mainstream education, their mean age of implantation is 38 months. This is significantly lower compared to the mean age of implantation of implantees that use non-oral communication and attend non-mainstream education. Simple logistic regression analysis shows age of implantation reliably predicts implantees (N = 126) would communicate using oral communication with odds ratio of 0.974, and also predict mainstream education (N = 118) with odds ratio of 0.967. The median score of PEACH rating scale is 87.5% in quiet, and this significantly correlates with an earlier age of implantation (r = -0.235 p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

UKM Cochlear Implant Program has achieved reasonable success among the pediatric implantees, with better outcomes seen in those implanted at the age of less than 4 years old.

Barriers to early pediatric cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVES

Universal newborn hearing screening has significantly improved the ability to identify patients with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), which results in earlier treatment and better hearing and development outcomes. It is recommended that patients born with SNHL who meet criteria receive cochlear implants (CIs) by a target age of 12 months, however many children are being implanted at an older age. This study aims to describe populations of pre-lingual patients with SNHL that are at risk for delayed implantation and to identify and analyze barriers that cause this delay.

METHODS

Charts of patients receiving a CI between January 2008 and June 2012 at a tertiary care cochlear implant center were reviewed retrospectively. We looked at patient demographics, age at hearing loss diagnosis, age at implantation, and etiology of hearing loss. Barriers to implantation were identified through surveys completed by team members.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven CI recipients were identified of which 42 were in patients with pre-lingual SNHL. SNHL etiology included: cochlear dysplasia (18%), GJB2/GJB6 (17%), acquired (10%) extreme prematurity (9%), and idiopathic (46%). The median age of SNHL diagnosis for pre-lingual patients was 15 months. Compared to private insurance, public insurance status was associated with SNHL diagnosis at a significantly later median age (20.0 vs. 4.0 months, p=0.024), and with a significantly longer median interval from diagnosis to implantation (25.5 vs. 11.0 months, p=0.029). While cochlear implant team members identified delayed insurance approval and medical comorbidities as reasons for delayed implantation, the most significant factor identified was parental, with delayed/missed appointments or reluctance for evaluations or surgery.

CONCLUSION

52% of patients with pre-lingual SNHL that met criteria for CI were implanted more than 12 months after diagnosis. Having public or no insurance was significantly associated with delayed implantation. Parental barriers were most common factors cited for delays in implantation. Overcoming these delays necessitates appropriate identification of at risk patients and creating a system to educate families and chaperone them through the process.

Pediatric Evaluation of the ClearVoice™ Speech Enhancement Algorithm in Everyday Life

ClearVoice™ enables Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users to improve their speech understanding in difficult listening environments, without compromising performance in quiet situations. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefits of ClearVoice in children. Children between six and fourteen years of age randomly tested two modalities of ClearVoice for one month each. The baseline program, HiRes 120™, and both ClearVoice programs were evaluated with a sentence test in quiet and noise. Parents and teachers completed a questionnaire related to everyday noisy situations. The switchover to ClearVoice was uneventful for both modalities. Adjustments to thresholds and comfort levels were required. Seven out of the nine children preferred a ClearVoice program. No impact of ClearVoice on performance in quiet was observed and both modalities of ClearVoice improved speech understanding in noise compared to the baseline program, significantly with ClearVoice high. Positive outcomes were obtained from the questionnaires and discussions with parents and children. This study showed that children benefited from using ClearVoice in their daily life. There was a clear trend towards improved speech understanding in noise with ClearVoice, without affecting performance in quiet; therefore ClearVoice can be used by children all day, without having to change programs.

Profound deafness and the acquisition of spoken language in children

Profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is not so infrequent, affecting 1 to 2 of every 1000 newborns in western countries. Nevertheless, universal hearing screening programs have not been widely applied, although such programs are already established for metabolic diseases. The acquisition of spoken language is a time-dependent process, and some form linguistic input should be present before the first 6 mo of life for a child to become linguistically competent. Therefore, profoundly deaf children should be detected early, and referred timely for the process of auditory rehabilitation to be initiated. Hearing assessment methods should reflect the behavioural audiogram in an accurate manner. Additional disabilities also need to be taken into account. Profound congenital SNHL is managed by a multidisciplinary team. Affected infants should be bilaterally fitted with hearing aids, no later than 3 mo after birth. They should be monitored until the first year of age. If they are not progressing linguistically, cochlear implantation can be considered after thorough preoperative assessment. Prelingually deaf children develop significant speech perception and production abilities, and speech intelligibility over time, following cochlear implantation. Age at intervention and oral communication, are the most important determinants of outcomes. Realistic parental expectations are also essential. Cochlear implant programs deserve the strong support of community members, professional bodies, and political authorities in order to be successful, and maximize the future earnings of pediatric cochlear implantation for human societies.

Determining early speech development in children with cochlear implants using the ELFRA-2 parental questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Increased early identification of hearing loss has led to infants younger than 24 months of age being implanted with cochlear implants. The objective of this study was to assess early speech development in children implanted with a cochlear implant before 24 months of age using the German questionnaire Elternfragebogen für Risikokinder 2 (ELFRA-2), and to compare these results to normative data of the ELFRA-2 in order to determine any performance differences.

METHODS

Two groups of children were included in this study. The first group included 6 children with a mean age at implantation of 11 months (range: 8-14 months). These children were tested by their parents or caretakers with the ELFRA-2 at the chronological age of 24 months. The second group included 9 children with a mean age at implantation of 13 months (range: 6-20 months) who were tested with the ELFRA-2 after 24 months of cochlear implant use.

RESULTS

Comparison analyses of children tested with the ELFRA-2 demonstrated a statistically significant difference in all ELFRA-2 scales between children with cochlear implants (CIs) at the chronological age of 24 months and the norm group (productive vocabulary: p=0.002; syntax: p=0.003; and morphology: p<0.001), and no significant difference between children with CIs at 24 months of device use and the norm group in all scales (productive vocabulary: p=0.335; syntax: p=0.965; and morphology: p=0.304).

CONCLUSION

Children implanted before 24 months of age reach a speech production level after 24 months of device use that is comparable to that of their normal hearing peers.

Treating options for deaf children

BACKGROUND/AIM

Although already established for metabolic diseases, universal screening programs for hearing have not been widely applied, despite the high incidence of profound congenital hearing loss. The present paper aims to review the current knowledge on the available treatment options for deaf infants.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The acquisition of spoken language is a time-dependent process. For a child to become linguistically competent, some form of linguistic input should be present as early as possible in his/her life. Although objective audiological methods have certain weaknesses, their combination can give an accurate diagnosis in most of the cases. Later on, behavioural audiometry should confirm the diagnosis. Additional disabilities also need to be considered, although such assessments may be difficult in very young children. Congenital deafness should be managed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Affected infants should be bilaterally fitted with hearing aids, no later than three months after birth. They should be monitored and if they are not progressing linguistically, cochlear implantation (CI) should be considered after thorough preoperative assessment. Following CI, the vast majority of congenitally deaf children develop significant speech perception and production abilities over time. Age-at-intervention and oral communication, are the most important determinants of outcomes. Realistic parental expectations are also essential. The continuous support of a dedicated pediatric CI program, in collaboration with local professionals, and community members, are also necessary to achieve a successful outcome.

CONCLUSION

Congenitally deaf children should be detected early, and referred timely for the process of auditory rehabilitation to be initiated. Strong support by community members, and professional bodies, can maximize the future earnings of pediatric auditory rehabilitation with hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Deaf students and their classroom communication: an evaluation of higher order categorical interactions among school and background characteristics

This article investigated to what extent age, use of a cochlear implant, parental hearing status, and use of sign in the home determine language of instruction for profoundly deaf children. Categorical data from 8,325 profoundly deaf students from the 2008 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children and Youth were analyzed using chi-square automated interaction detector, a stepwise analytic procedure that allows the assessment of higher order interactions among categorical variables. Results indicated that all characteristics were significantly related to classroom communication modality. Although younger and older students demonstrated a different distribution of communication modality, for both younger and older students, cochlear implantation had the greatest effect on differentiating students into communication modalities, yielding greater gains in the speech-only category for implanted students. For all subgroups defined by age and implantation status, the use of sign at home further segregated the sample into communication modality subgroups, reducing the likelihood of speech only and increasing the placement of students into signing classroom settings. Implications for future research in the field of deaf education are discussed.

Parents' views on changes in their child's communication and linguistic and socioemotional development after cochlear implantation

Our aim was to obtain versatile information on the communication and socioemotional development of implanted children in their everyday environment. We studied 18 children implanted unilaterally at the mean age of 3 years 4 months. All had normal nonverbal intelligence, but 8 (44%) had concomitant problems. Their parents filled out semistructured questionnaires at 6 months and then annually 1-5 years after activation. Parents reported a change from use of signs to speech, and changes in the children's vocal behavior and spoken language development. They also reported that children had calmed down and showed an increased sense of self-confidence and safety with an expanded social life. The greatest changes started to take place 1 year after implantation. Five years after implantation, two thirds of children were judged to be as independent as their age peers. We conclude that changes in communication pave the way to benefits in psychosocial development after implantation.

Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes

A group of 102 children using the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant were assessed for open-set speech perception abilities at six-monthly intervals following implant surgery. The group included a wide range of ages, types of hearing loss, ages at onset of hearing loss, experience with implant use and communication modes. Multivariate analysis indicated that a shorter duration of profound hearing loss, later onset of profound hearing loss, exclusively oral/aural communication and greater experience with the implant were associated with better open-set speech perception. Developmental delay was associated with poorer speech perception and the SPEAK signal coding scheme was shown to provide better speech perception performance than previous signal processors. Results indicated that postoperative speech perception outcomes could be predicted with an accuracy that is clinically useful.

[Present state of cochlear implant treatment in adults and children]

The technique of cochlear implantation was the first method which allowed replacement of a sense organ by a (partially) implantable electronic prosthesis. By this method the cells of the spiral ganglion of the cochlea are directly stimulated by the electrodes introduced into the cochlea, bypassing the functions of the outer and middle ear as well as the cochlea. Treatment with a cochlear implant (CI) has been established over the last 20-30 years as a reliable method for restoring hearing in adults and children with severe hearing disorders and is now a routine method in many centers. For optimal results in understanding speech and for children in the speech development phase, rehabilitation must be an integral part of the total treatment and follow soon after implantation. To achieve this early diagnosis of hearing difficulties or deafness is necessary, which is simplified by a consistent hearing screening of newborns, now a statutory procedure in Germany.

Interpreting parental proxy reports of (health-related) quality of life for children with unilateral cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE

To examine what factors are associated with EuroQol EQ-5D scores in children after unilateral cochlear implantation and to explore parental conceptualisations of health-related quality of life (HRQL) and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Face to face interviews were conducted with the parents of 222 implanted children, in an attempt to elicit information on their child's HRQL and QoL. Post-implant, the child's HRQL was measured using the EQ-5D, completed by parental proxy. Regression analysis was undertaken in order to estimate the association between the child EQ-5D score and child characteristics, child performance, and parental characteristics, in order to assess the construct validity of the EQ-5D. HRQL was also measured using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (VAS), where the endpoints were the best and worst imaginable health state, and a VAS was also used to measure QoL (endpoints: best/worst imaginable QoL). Parents were asked to estimate scores on both these VAS measures both post-implantation and (retrospectively) pre-implantation. Throughout the HRQL and QoL elicitation process, subjects' comments, and observations were noted.

RESULTS

Children who had an additional disability (p<0.001), were male (p<0.05) or had a lower level of auditory perception (p<0.001) were estimated to have lower EQ-5D scores, as were children whose parents who left school before age 18 years (p<0.05). According to the EuroQol VAS the mean difference between pre- and post-implantation score was 0.14, compared to 0.35 for the QoL VAS, demonstrating that parents tended not to see HRQL and QoL as equivalent. As 67% of parents deemed there to be no difference between the pre- and post-implant EuroQol VAS scores we also infer that the majority of parents rejected the notion of deafness being a HRQL issue.

CONCLUSION

The evidence relating to the construct validity of the EQ-5D is variable-though it was able to discriminate between children with certain levels of auditory performance, it could not discriminate between children who differed in other ways. By limiting outcome from cochlear implantation to HRQL, as opposed to QoL, the benefits of cochlear implants are likely to be underestimated.

Educational performance of pediatric cochlear implant recipients in mainstream classes

OBJECTIVES

The present study documents the school performance of 20 pediatric cochlear implant recipients who attended mainstream classes and compares their educational performance with their normally hearing peers.

METHODOLOGY

All 20 school-aged children who underwent cochlear implantation at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia cochlear implant programme participated in this study. Three measures were employed to assess the school performance. First, using the SIFTER teacher-rating scale, the second measure was the child's examination results, and the third was the child's standing compared to his/her peers in language subject, mathematics, and the overall academic performance during the end of semester examinations.

RESULTS

The SIFTER rating scale indicated that only 11.8% of the children were identified as not educationally at risk, 17.6% passed four of the SIFTER subtests, whereas the other 71.6% failed in at least two of the subtests on SIFTER. The highest pass rate was obtained in behavior subtest (76.5%), followed by classroom participation (70.6%), attention (58.8%), academic (47.1%), and communication (11.8%). On the educational performance, the cochlear implant recipients performed significantly better in mathematics (mean scores 62.67%; S.D. 22.24) than in language (mean scores 49.96%, S.D. 25.88) (p<0.01). In the overall examination performance, 25.00% had above average performance (>75th percentile), 18.75% had average performance (25-75th percentile), and another 56.25% performed at below average (<25th percentile).

CONCLUSION

Children with cochlear implant were rated poorly in the SIFTER communication subtest. It is possible that language deficit presents an educational challenge in these children. The educational performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream classes varies. Although 43.75% of them thrive well in a full-time mainstream setting, a significant percentage of them (56.25%) performed at below the average level. These findings reemphasize that although a cochlear implant has successfully provided deaf children with a good hearing potential, the majority of its recipients still require additional educational supports in order to function well in the mainstream educational setting.

Three-year follow-up of children with postmeningitic deafness and partial cochlear implant insertion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcome of children with postmeningitic deafness and partial insertion of the Nucleus electrode array, and to compare their speech perception performance with that of children with full insertion of the electrode array.

DESIGN

A battery of seven speech perception tests was administered to 25 children with a cochlear implant (CI). Results were reduced into one score: equivalent hearing loss (EHL).

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre.

PARTICIPANTS

The partial insertion group comprised seven children, mean age at implantation 5.5 years, mean duration of deafness 3.6 years. The full-insertion control group comprised 18 children. Mean age at implantation: 4.4 years; mean duration of deafness: 2.9 years. All the children became deaf between 0 and 3 years of age.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Over a 3-year follow-up period, the children with partial insertion showed continuing progress, although there was wide variation in performance and the rate of progression. Some open-set comprehension could even be achieved with the insertion of only eight electrodes of a nucleus device.

RESULTS

Three years after implantation, speech perception in the partial insertion children was poorer than that in the control groups with long (P < 0.01; 95% confidence interval 7-43 dB EHL) and short duration of deafness (P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval 28-53 dB EHL). They showed slower progress and reached a poorer EHL plateau. Four of the seven children acquired open-set word recognition.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with partial insertion of the electrode array benefit from a CI, although less than patients with complete insertion.

Innovation and funding specialist services

This paper traces the innovative development of the Nottingham Cochlear Implant Programmes. The paediatric programme was the first to be established in the UK in 1989 and remains the largest programme in the UK today, whilst the adult programme developed later, in 1994. The first section of the paper describes trends in service development whilst the second section makes detailed reference to the history of funding arrangements which enabled the programme to become established. The third part of the paper examines the (de)merits of locality purchasing versus centralised purchasing for specialist services, using cochlear implantation as way of illustration. The paper aims to provide an informative history of the development of the service in Nottingham and from this background create debate as to the most appropriate future funding mechanism for cochlear implantation in particular and specialist services in general.

Cochlear implantation update

Cochlear implantation is recognized as a valuable intervention with important implications for the acquisition of speech perception and verbal language in children with severe to profound hearing impairment. Auditory rehabilitation, language intervention, and close coordination between parents, schools, and the implant center are necessary to maximize efficacy. Early identification of hearing loss, early hearing aid use and language intervention, and cochlear implantation by 2 years of age are positive predictors for language acquisition that can approach the levels of normal-hearing children. There are early indications that increased access to mainstream education and gains in quality of life are long-term benefits that render cochlear implantation a cost-effective intervention.

Cost-benefit analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation: German experience

HYPOTHESIS

To explore, from the payers' perspective, the cost-benefit ratio of pediatric cochlear implantation for congenitally deaf and prelingually deafened children compared with children with hearing aids. The study should verify the hypothesis that educational and associated costs increase with age at implantation and that these can be below costs for children with hearing aids.

METHODS

Children who received implants at the Medical University of Hanover at different ages (Group 1, 0-1.9 yr; Group 2, 2-3.9 yr; Group 3, 4-6.9 yr) were compared with deaf children using hearing aids (Group 4). Sick funds were the payers for direct and indirect costs, and public authorities were the payers for educational costs. Educational settings were used to measure for benefits. All costs related to the hearing deficiency were included up to the age of 16 years on the basis of 1999 currency values. A scenario analysis was used to explore the impact of variation of costs and discount rates.

RESULTS

Total costs for the three age groups of children with implants were from euro 138,000 (approximately US$113,100) to euro 177,000 (approximately US$152,700), compared with euro 160,000 (approximately US$138,000) for hearing aid users.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the view that pediatric cochlear implantation provides positive cost-benefit ratios compared with hearing aid users, depending on the age at implantation. Implantation is strongly recommended from the payers' perspective for children implanted before the age of 2 years.

The educational settings of profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants compared with age-matched peers with hearing aids: implications for management

The educational settings of 42 implanted profoundly deaf children 3 years after implantation were compared with the respective settings of 635 age-matched severely deaf and 511 profoundly deaf children with hearing aids. All implanted children received their implants before beginning school. The results revealed that 3 years after implantation. 38% (16 children) of the implanted profoundly deaf children attended mainstream schools, whereas 57% (24 children) were in a unit, or special class, in a mainstream school, and 5% (two children) were in schools for the deaf. With regard to the age-matched profoundly deaf children with hearing aids, 12% (63 children) attended mainstream schools, whereas 55% (281 children) were in a unit of a mainstream school, and 33% (167 children) were in schools for the deaf. In the group of age-matched severely deaf children, 38% (239 children) attended mainstream schools, whereas 51% (326 children) were in a unit of a mainstream school, and 11% (70 children) were in schools for the deaf. Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference between the educational placement of implanted children and hearing-aided profoundly deaf children (p<0.00001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between implanted children and hearing-aided severely deaf children. In conclusion, implanted profoundly deaf children who have received their implants before beginning school have the same profile of educational placement as aided severely deaf children rather than aided profoundly deaf children of the same age in the UK. This is likely to have significant implications for the future management of profoundly deaf children and to influence future planning of educational support services.

Variations in gains in auditory performance from pediatric cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate variations in gains in auditory performance in children with cochlear implants.

STUDY DESIGN

The auditory performance of 98 children was measured with the Category of Auditory Performance survey instrument. All data were collected prospectively. Variables used to explain gain in Category of Auditory Performance were age at implantation, sex, the duration of "untreated" deafness, the year in which implantation occurred, health care inputs, and cause of hearing impairment. The data were analyzed by ordered probabilistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Gain in Category of Auditory Performance was observed to be negatively related to age at implantation, the year in which implantation took place, and the number of medical consultations the child received. None of the other variables were significant determinants of gain in Category of Auditory Performance.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the value of examining incremental gain from implantation rather than simply examining outcome levels. It was found that pediatric implantation is subject to diminishing returns. This suggests that further relaxation of entry criteria to implant programs should be undertaken only after careful consideration. The study also confirmed that age at implantation is an important determinant of outcomes. Greater gain in Category of Auditory Performance was experienced by those who underwent implantation at a younger age. This finding has implications for screening, as well as for purchasers and providers of implant services, highlighting the importance of responding in a timely fashion to identified need.

A cost-utility analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to explore the cost-utility of pediatric cochlear implantation, incorporating savings associated with education into the analysis.

METHODS

The costs of pediatric cochlear implantation were based on the full costs levied to purchasers, inclusive of complications and maintenance, by a large pediatric cochlear implant program in the United Kingdom. After implantation, profoundly hearing-impaired children have been found to develop hearing threshold levels equivalent to severely hearing-impaired children who wear hearing aids. An independent study calculated the educational costs for severely hearing-impaired and profoundly hearing-impaired children. From this study, savings in educational costs that would result from enabling the profoundly hearing-impaired to function as severely hearing-impaired were determined. Cost-utility was established conservatively by applying to children the known gains in utility reported by adults with cochlear implants.

RESULTS

The discounted costs of creating a pediatric cochlear implant user and of maintaining the child over the first 12 years were 48,757 pound silver($78,011). The discounted difference in education costs associated with a profoundly hearing-impaired child (HL >95 dB) as compared with a severely hearing-impaired child (HL 70-95 dB) over the same period was 26,781 pound silver($42,850). These represent the potential savings in educational costs associated with pediatric cochlear implantation. Assuming implantation at age 4 years, the discounted net average cost of pediatric cochlear implantation over compulsory school years (ages 4-16) was 21,976 pound silver ($35,162). Cochlear implants have been shown to improve the quality of life in adults by 0.23 points per annum (where quality of life is rated on a scale from 0 to 1). Applying this weight to children receiving implantation at age 4 years, and assuming a life expectancy of 74 years, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain is calculated to be 16.33. The cost per undiscounted QALY gain was estimated to be 1,345.70 pound silver ($2153.12) and per discounted QALY gain to be 10,341 pound silver ($16,545.60).

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence, based on conservative assumptions, to support the view that pediatric cochlear implantation is a cost-effective health care intervention in profoundly hearing-impaired young children.