Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: parents' perspective and device use.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was (1) to measure parental expectations before surgery of a sequentially placed second cochlear implant and compare these results with parental observations postoperatively and (2) to measure device use of the second cochlear implant and compare to unilateral implant use. METHODS: Thirty prelingually deaf children with a unilateral cochlear implant (mean age at first implant 1.8 years) received a second implant at a mean age of 5.3 years. To measure parental expectations and observations, parents completed the Parents' Perspective before surgery of the second implant and after 12 and 24 months. The questionnaire included 1 additional question on sound localization. Device use of both the first and second implants was assessed retrospectively after 6, 12 and 24 months of implant use. Device use of the study group was also compared to a reference group of 30 unilateral implant users matched for age at second implantation. RESULTS: Parental expectations with regard to sound localization were significantly higher than the observed changes within the first year of bilateral implant use. The observed changes in communication, listening to speech without lipreading, and speech and language skills met or surpassed parental expectations. Irrespective of age at second implantation, the second implant was significantly less worn than the first implant. No significant difference was observed between the use of the second implant of the study group and device use of the reference group. Second implant use was significantly correlated with the difference in speech recognition between the 2 implants alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative parental expectations were too high with regard to the observed localization skills within the first year of bilateral implant use. The study showed that several of these sequentially implanted children had more difficulties in wearing the second implant than in wearing the first implant during the rehabilitation period. The present results suggest that this is caused by the dominant first implant performance. Such data are of high importance in order to provide parents with realistic counseling on what they can expect from sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.

Should a hearing aid in the contralateral ear be recommended for children with a unilateral cochlear implant?

OBJECTIVES: To predict bimodal benefit before cochlear implantation, we compared the performances of participants with bimodal fitting and with a cochlear implant alone on speech perception tests. METHODS: Twenty-two children with a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other (bimodal fitting) were included. Several aided and unaided average hearing thresholds and the aided word recognition score of the hearing aid ear were related to the bimodal benefit on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. Results with bimodal fitting were compared to results with the cochlear implant alone on a phoneme recognition test in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No relationship was found between any of the hearing thresholds or the aided phoneme recognition score of the hearing aid ear and the bimodal benefit on the phoneme recognition tests. At the group level, the bimodal scores on the phoneme recognition tests in quiet and in noise were significantly better than the scores with the cochlear implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively available audiometric parameters are not reliable predictors of bimodal benefit in candidates for cochlear implantation. Children with unilateral implants benefit from bimodal fitting on speech tests. This improvement in performance warrants the recommendation of bimodal fitting even when bimodal benefit cannot be predicted.