Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 16(03): 387-390
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772012000300014
Review Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Prelingual deafness: Benefits from cochlear implants versus conventional hearing aids

Aline Gomes Bittencourt
1   Neurotology Fellow - Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ana Adelina Giantomassi Della Torre
1   Neurotology Fellow - Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento
2   Professor and Chairman - Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Robinson Koji Tsuji
3   Associate Doctor - Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Rubens de Brito
4   Associate Professor - Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 October 2011

11 February 2012

Publication Date:
05 December 2013 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Introduction: The majority of patients with hearing loss, including those with severe hearing loss, benefits from the use of hearing aids. The cochlear implant is believed to achieve better results in a child with hearing loss in cases where the severity of disability renders hearing aids incapable of providing adequate sound information, as they require sufficient cochlear reserve so that acoustic detention occurs.

Objective: To assess if cochlear implants provide more benefit than conventional hearing aids in prelingually deaf patients.

Summary of the findings: The study was a systematic review of scientific papers selected by a search of the SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and LILACS-BIREME databases. Among the 2169 articles found, 12 studies proved relevant to the issue and presented an evidence strength rating of B. No publications rated evidence strength A. Seven of the studies analyzed were prospective cohorts and 5 were cross-sectional studies.

Conclusion: Based on several studies, cochlear implants were demonstrated to be the best current alternative for bilateral severe or profound hearing loss, achieving better results in speech perception and development in prelingual children when compared to conventional hearing aids.

Keywords

cochlear implants - hearing loss - sensorineural - deafness - hearing aids
 

  • References

  • 1 Mildner V, Sindija B, Zrinski KV. Speech perception of children with cochlear implants and children with traditional hearing aids. Clin Linguist Phon 2006; 20: 219-29
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Van den Borne S, Snik AF, Hoekstra CC, Vermeulen AM, van den Broek P, Brokx JP. Assessment of basal sound identification skills and communication abilities in profoundly deaf children fitted with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998; 23: 455-61
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Most T, Rothem H, Luntz M. Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual speech perception by individuals with cochlear implants versus individuals with hearing aids. Am Ann Deaf 2009; 154: 284-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tait M, Lutman ME. Comparison of early communicative behavior in young children with cochlear implants and with hearing aids. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 352-61
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vermeulen AM, Snik AF, Brokx JP, van den Broek P, Geelen CP, Beijk CM. Comparison of speech perception performance in children using a cochlear implant with children using conventional hearing aids, based on the concept of “equivalent hearing loss”. Scand Audiol Suppl 1997; 47: 55-7
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Osberger MJ, Fisher L, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Geier L, Barker MJ. Speech recognition performance of older children with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1998; 19: 152-7
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Tomblin JB, Spencer L, Flock S, Tyler R, Gantz B. A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 497-511
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Svirsky MA, Meyer TA. Comparison of speech perception in pediatric clarion cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999; 177: 104-9
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Osberger MJ, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Barker M, Geier L. Clinical trial of the clarion cochlear implant in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999; 177: 88-92
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Ibertsson T, Willstedt-Svensson U, Radeborg K, Sahlén B. A methodological contribution to the assessment of nonword repetition-a comparison between children with specific language impairment and hearing-impaired children with hearing aids or cochlear implants. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2008; 33: 168-78
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Most T, Aviner C. Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual perception of emotions by individuals with cochlear implants, hearing AIDS, and normal hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2009; 14: 449-64
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baudonck N, Dhooge I, D'haeseleer E, Van Lierde K. A comparison of the consonant production between Dutch children using cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 74: 416-21
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar