PDF herunterladen
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 17(03): 285-290
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772013000300009
Original Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Audiological outcomes of cochlear implantation in Waardenburg Syndrome

Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães
1   Audiologist. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Paola Angélica Samuel
1   Audiologist. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Maria Valeria Schimdt Goffi-Gomez
2   Audiologist, PhD. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Robinson Koji Tsuji
3   MD, PHD. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Rubens Brito
3   MD, PHD. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento
3   MD, PHD. Department of Otolaryngology, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

11. Februar 2013

23. April 2013

Publikationsdatum:
22. Januar 2014 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Introduction: The most relevant clinical symptom in Waardenburg syndrome is profound bilateral sensorioneural hearing loss.

Aim: To characterize and describe hearing outcomes after cochlear implantation in patients with Waardenburg syndrome to improve preoperative expectations.

Method: This was an observational and retrospective study of a series of cases. Children who were diagnosed with Waardenburg syndrome and who received a multichannel cochlear implant between March 1999 and July 2012 were included in the study. Intraoperative neural response telemetry, hearing evaluation, speech perception, and speech production data before and after surgery were assessed.

Results: During this period, 806 patients received a cochlear implant and 10 of these (1.2%) were diagnosed with Waardenburg syndrome. Eight of the children received a Nucleus 24® implant and 1 child and 1 adult received a DigiSonic SP implant. The mean age at implantation was 44 months among the children. The average duration of use of a cochlear implant at the time of the study was 43 months. Intraoperative neural responses were present in all cases. Patients who could use the speech processor effectively had a pure tone average of 31 dB in free-field conditions. In addition, the MUSS and MAIS questionnaires revealed improvements in speech perception and production. Four patients did not have a good outcome, which might have been associated with ineffective use of the speech processor.

Conclusion: Despite the heterogeneity of the group, patients with Waardenburg syndrome who received cochlear implants were found to have hearing thresholds that allowed access to speech sounds. However, patients who received early intervention and rehabilitation showed better evolution of auditory perception.

Keywords

Hearing - Cochlear Implants - Hearing Loss - Waardenburg Syndrome - Speech Perception
 

  • References

  • 1 Guedes MC, Weber R, Gomez MV, Neto RV, Peralta CG, Bento RF. Influence of evoked compound action potential on speech perception in cochlear. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 73 (4) 439-45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Moret A, Bevilacqua M, Costa O. [Cochlear implant: hearing and language in pre-lingual deaf children]. Pro Fono 2007; 19 (3) 295-304
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kubo T, Iwaki T, Sasaki T. Auditory perception and speech production skills of children with cochlear. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2008; 70 (4) 224-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nayak CS, Isaacson G. Worldwide distribution of Waardenburg syndrome. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112 (9 Pt 1): 817-20
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Smith DW. Síndrome de Waardenburg, Tipos I e II. In: Smith DW, , editor. Síndromes de malformações congênitas. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Manole; 1989. p. 192–3
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Hageman MJ, Dalleman JW. Heterogeneity in Waardenburǵs Syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 1977; 29: 468-85
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Sugii A, Iwaki T, Doi K, Takahashi Y, Yamamoto K, Fuse Y , et al. Cochlear implant in a young child with Waardenburg syndrome. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000; 57: 215-9
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Migirov L, Henkin Y, Hildesheimer M, Muchnik C, Kronenberg J. Cochlear implantation in Waardenburg's syndrome. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125 (7) 713-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cullen RD, Zdanski C, Roush P, Brown C, Teagle H, Pillsbury 3rd HC , et al. Cochlear implants in Waardenburg syndrome. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (7) 1273-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Sousa Andrade SM, Monteiro AR, Martins JH, Alves MC, Santos Silva LF, Quadros JM , et al. Cochlear implant rehabilitation outcomes in Waardenburg syndrome children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 76 (9) 1375-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bureau Internacional d́Audio Phonologie Bureau Internacional d́Audio Phonologie Audiometric classification of hearing impairment: recommendation 02/1 [Internet]1996. [cited 2010]. Available from: http://www.biap.org/biapanglais/rec021eng.htm
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Goffi-Gomez M, Guedes M, Sant Anna S, Peralta C, Tsuji R, Castilho A , et al. Critérios de Seleção e Avaliação Médica e Audiológica dos Candidatos ao Implante Coclear: Protocolo HCFMUSP. Arquivos Int Otorrinolaring 2004; 8 (4) 303-13
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Orlandi A, Bevilacqua M. Deficiência auditiva profunda nos primeiros anos de vida: procedimento para a avaliação da percepção de fala. Pró-Fono 1998; 10 (2) 87-91
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bevilacqua MC, Tech EA. Elaboração de um procedimento de avaliação de percepção de fala em crianças deficientes auditivas profundas a partir de cinco anos de idade. In: Marchesan I, Zorzi J, Gomes I, , editors. Tópicos em Fonoaudiologia. São Paulo: Lovise; 1996. p. 411–33
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Geers AE. Techniques for assessing auditory speech perception and lipreading enhancement in young deaf children. The Volta Review 1994; 96 (5) 85-96
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW. Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired. Am J Otol 1991; ;12 Suppl: 144-50
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Castiquini EAT, Bevilacqua MC. Escala de integração auditiva significativa: procedimento adaptado para a avaliação da percepção da fala. Rev Soc Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 2000; 6: 51-60
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Robbins AM, Osberger MJ. Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS). Indianopolis: Indiana University School of Medicine; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Nascimento LT. Uma proposta de avaliação da linguagem oral. Bauru: Hospital de Pesquisa e Reabilitação de Lesões lábio-Palatais; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Protocolo Latino Americano para Implantes Cocleares, (2003).
  • 21 Barzotto JDV, Folador MF. Síndrome de Waardenburg: características audiológicas. Rev CEFAC 2004; 6 (3) 306-11
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Aquino TJM, Oliveira JAA, Anselmo-Lima WT, Motonaga SM, Feres MCLC. Síndrome de Waardenburg e perda auditiva – implicações clínicas e aconselhamento genético. Rev Bras Otorrinol 1997; 63 (4) 353-59
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Russo ICP, Behlau M. As pistas acústicas das vogais e consoantes. In: Russo ICP, Behlau M, , editors. Percepção da fala: análise acústica do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Lovise; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Daneshi A, Hassanzadeh S, Farhadi M. Cochlear implantation in children with Waardenburg syndrome. J Laryngol Otol 2005; 119 (9) 719-23
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Miyamoto RT, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Kirk KI, Houston DM, Bergeson-Dana T. Language skills of profoundly deaf children who received cochlear implants under. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 128 (4) 373-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Profant M, Kabatova Z, Simkova L. From hearing screening to cochlear implantation: cochlear implants in children. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 128 (4) 369-72
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stuchi R, Nascimento L, Belivacqua M, Brito Neto R. Linguagem oral de crianças com cinco anos de uso do implante coclear. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient 2007; 19 (2) 167-76
    Google Scholar