RE: Rose, D. E. (1994). Cochlear implants in children with prelingual deafness: Another side of the coin. American Journal of Audiology, 3(1), 6 After reading Darrell Rose’s Viewpoint article on cochlear implantation in the prelingually deaf child, I was perplexed and confused as to whether it was meant as a scientific criticism or an emotional plea. From a scientific standpoint, I was dismayed as to the nature of the questionnaire-based study performed by ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   November 01, 1994
RE: Rose, D. E. (1994). Cochlear implants in children with prelingual deafness: Another side of the coin. American Journal of Audiology, 3(1), 6
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Susan B. Waltzman
    NYU Medical Center New York, NY
  • Editor’s note: Dr. Rose is out of the country and cannot be reached for comment.
    Editor’s note: Dr. Rose is out of the country and cannot be reached for comment.×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   November 01, 1994
RE: Rose, D. E. (1994). Cochlear implants in children with prelingual deafness: Another side of the coin. American Journal of Audiology, 3(1), 6
American Journal of Audiology, November 1994, Vol. 3, 77-78. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0303.77
 
American Journal of Audiology, November 1994, Vol. 3, 77-78. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0303.77
After reading Darrell Rose’s Viewpoint article on cochlear implantation in the prelingually deaf child, I was perplexed and confused as to whether it was meant as a scientific criticism or an emotional plea.
From a scientific standpoint, I was dismayed as to the nature of the questionnaire-based study performed by Dr. Rose on which he formed his conclusions. Although he may have this information, important variables that are factors in postoperative performance with a cochlear implant, such as the ones listed below, were left unmentioned:
  1. Were all children implanted with the same cochlear prosthesis? Were they all multichannel devices, or were some children using single-channel devices? There is clearly a considerable difference in performance between the two types of implants.

  2. Are all the children the same age, and were they the same age when they were implanted? Again, length of deafness and age at time of implantation are known factors that affect postoperative performance. Using current technology, a critical time window for implantation of the congenitally deaf child/adult appears to exist and should be taken into account when considering the prognosis.

  3. Length of implant usage is another factor. Have they all been users for the same amount of time?

  4. What type of communication mode was used prior to and following surgery?

  5. What type(s) of schools for the deaf were polled? Were schools such as CID, St. Joseph’s (MO), and Clarke included? Since many of the schools for the deaf are largely manual, this would predetermine the outcome of implant usage and skew the data. Children in the manual schools are not appropriate candidates for an implant.

  6. Did the children have appropriate follow-up and rehabilitation?

  7. Were all the children lumped together, or were the above factors accounted for and the groups divided and analyzed appropriately?

  8. Since only one questionnaire was sent to each school, is he certain whether the schools included all of the implant recipients or a partial sampling?

  9. Parental support/involvement?

First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access