Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 17(01): 057-061
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772013000100010
Original Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Cochlear implants and bacterial meningitis: A speech recognition study in paired samples

Rubens de Brito
1   Otolaryngologist, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Aline Gomes Bittencourt
2   Otolaryngologist, PhD student. Neurotology Fellow, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Maria Valéria Goffi-Gomez
3   Audiologist, PhD in Human Communication Disorders (Speech Pathology). Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ana Tereza Magalhães
4   PhD student. Cochlear Implant Fellow, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Paola Samuel
5   Cochlear Implant Fellow, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Robinson Koji Tsuji
6   Otolaryngologist, PhD. Associate Doctor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento
7   Otolaryngologist, PhD. Professor and Chairman, Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 October 2012

25 October 2012

Publication Date:
06 January 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Introduction: Cochlear implants may guarantee sound perception and the ability to detect speech at a close-to-normal hearing intensity; however, differences have been observed among implantees in terms of performance on discrimination tests and speech recognition.

Objective: To identify whether patients with post-meningitis deafness perform similarly to patients with hearing loss due to other causes.

Method: A retrospective clinical study involving post-lingual patients who had been using Nucleus-22 or Nucleus-24 cochlear implants for at least 1 year. These patients were matched with respect to age (± 2 years), time since the onset of deafness (± 1 year), and the duration of implant use with implant users who had hearing loss due to other causes. Speech perception was assessed using the Portuguese version of the Latin-American Protocol for the Evaluation of Cochlear Implants.

Results: The sample consisted of 52 individuals (26 in each of the 2 groups). The post-meningitic group had a median of 18.5 active electrodes. The group with hearing loss due to other causes had a median of 21, but no significant statistical difference was observed (p = 0.07). The results of closed- and open-set speech recognition tests showed great variability in speech recognition between the studied groups. These differences were more pronounced for the most difficult listening tasks, such as the medial consonant task (in the vowel-consonant-vowel format).

Conclusion: Cochlear implant recipients with hearing loss due to bacterial meningitis, who had been using the device for 1 year performed more poorly on closed- and open-set speech recognition tests than did implant recipients with hearing loss due to other causes.

Keywords

Cochlear implants - Speech perception - Meningitis
 

  • References

  • 1 Bento RF, Brito neto RV, Castilho AM, Gomez MVSG, Giorgi SB, Guedes MC. Resultados auditivos com o implante coclear multi-canal em pacientes submetidos a cirurgia no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004; 70 (5) 632-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G , et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using coclhear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996; 1 (5) 293-306
    Google Scholar
  • 3 El-Kashlan HK, Ashbaugh C, Zwolen T, Telian AS. Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children in ossified cochleae. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (4) 596-600
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Steenerson RL, Gary LB, Wynens MS. Scala vestibuli cochlear implantation for labyrinthine ossification. Am J Otol 1990; 11: 360-3
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Philippon D, Bergeron F, Ferron P, Bussieres R. Cochlear implantation in postmeningitic deafness. Otol Neurotol 2009; 31: 83-7
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Nichani J, Green K, Hans P, Bruce I, Henderson L, Ramsden R. Cochlear implantation after bacterial meningitis in children: outcomes in ossified and nonossified cochleas. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (5) 784-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gomez MVSG, Guedes MC, Sant'Anna SBG, Peralta CGO, Tsuji RK, Castilho AM , et al. Critérios de Seleção e Avaliação Médica e Audiológica dos Candidatos ao Implante Coclear: Protocolo HC-FMUSP. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol 2004; 8 (4) 303-23
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Mosnier I, Ambert-Dahan E, Smadja M, Ferrary E, Bouccara D, Bozorg-Grayeli A, Sterkers O. Performances and complications of cochlear implant in 134 adult patients implanted since 1990. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2006; 123 (2) 71-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Macandie C, Singh R. Meningitis and cochlear implantation in Scotland. Cochlear Implants Int 2000; 1 (2) 108-13
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Eshraghi AA, Telischi FF, Hodges AV, Odabasi O, Balkany TJ. Changes in programming over time in postmeningitis cochlear implant users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131 (6) 885-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Francis HW, Buchman CA, Visaya JM, Wang NY, Zwolan TA, Fink NE, Niparko JK. Surgical factors in pediatric cochlear implantation and their early effects on electrode activation and functional outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (4) 502-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Douglas SA, Sanli H, Gibson WP. Meningitis resulting in hearing loss and labyrinthitis ossificans - does the causative organism matter?. Cochlear Implants Int 2008; 9 (2) 90-6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sanna M, Khrais T, Guida M, Falcioni M. Auditory brainstem implant in a child with severely ossified cochlea. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (9) 1700-3
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Grayeli AB, Kalamarides M, Bouccara D. Auditory Brainstem Implant in Neurofibromatosis Type 2 and Non-Neurofibromatosis Type 2 Patients. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29: 1140-6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sridhar D, Stakhovskaya O, Leake PA. A frequency-position function for the human cochlear spiral ganglion. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (Suppl. 01) 16-20
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Goffi-Gomez MV, Abdala CF, Peralta CG, Tsuji RK, Brito R, Bento RF. Neural response telemetry in patients with the double-array cochlear implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267 (4) 515-22
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Green JD, Marion MS, Hinojosa R. Labyrinthitis ossificans: histopathologic consideration for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991; 100: 712-6
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Wellman MB, Sommer DD, McKenna J. Sensorineural hearing loss in postmeningitic children. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (6) 907-12
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bevilacqua MC, Moretal M, Costa Filho OA, Nascimento LT, Banhara MR. Cochlear implant in deaf children due to meningites. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2003; 69 (6) 760-4
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Fitzpatrick E, McCrae R, Schramm D. A retrospective study of cochlear implant outcomes in children with residual hearing. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 2006; 6: 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Francis HW, Pulsifer MB, Chinnici J, Nutt R, Venick HS, Yeagle JD, Niparko JK. Effects of central nervous system residua on cochlear implant results in children deafened by meningitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (5) 604-11
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Roukema BY, Van Loon MC, Smits C, Smit CF, Goverts ST, Merkus P, Hensen EF. Cochlear implantation after bacterial meningitis in infants younger than 9 months. Int J Otolaryngol 2011; 2011: 845-879
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Guedes MC, Weber R, Gomez MV, Brito R, Peralta CG, Bento RF. Influence of evoked compound action potential on speech perception in cochlear implant users. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 73 (4) 439-445
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar