What Can Long-Term Attendance at Programming Appointments Tell Us About Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients?. Issue 3 (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Choo, Dawn; Dettman, Shani Joy
• Is Part Of: Otology & neurotology. Volume 38:Issue 3(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: Cochlear implants -- Long-term attendance -- Pediatric -- Programming appointments; Otology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Skull base -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.8005
• DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001299
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1531-7129

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: This study sought to understand factors linked to long-term engagement with available post-implant "mapping" review services for individuals who received cochlear implants (CI)(s) as children. Study Design: Demographics, communication outcomes, and appointment attendance records from an unselected group of 400 participants who received CI(s) between 1985 and 2009 were analyzed. Results: After 5 years post-implant, 85.75% (n = 343) of participants attended the clinic for "mapping" appointments between March 2011 and March 2014, but 14.25% (n = 57) had not attended "mapping" for more than 3 years before March 2014. Findings showed that participants who did attend routine follow-up "mapping" appointments received their first implants at a significantly younger age (mean, 3.73 yr; standard deviation [SD], 3.39) and demonstrated better receptive language performance (mean standard score, 72; SD, 21.2) and better speech perception scores (mean open-set words, 54.1%; SD, 24.4; phonemes, 77.5%; SD, 15.8) suggesting they derived greater benefit from the technology than participants who did not attend (mean age at implant, 6.38 yr; SD, 4.85; mean receptive language standard score, 58.6; SD, 25.6; mean open-set-words, 34.5%; SD, 24.5; phonemes, 62.7.4%; SD, 23.4). Conclusions: The present study identified a profile of pediatric CI recipients who continue to attend follow-up review appointments after 5 years of device experience. Individuals who were non-attenders tended to include part-time and non-users of the technology. This could be due to a range of factors including the use of past speech processor technology (at first 12 months after switch-on), less overall benefit, and the presence of additional special needs.