Current Trends in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidate Selection and Postoperative Follow-Up Purpose In this article, the authors describe current pediatric cochlear implant (CI) assessment and postoperative scheduling protocols in the United States. Method A survey was conducted in 2 phases. Results Response rates were similar between Phase I (10%) and Phase II (13%). Across phases, nearly all ... Research Article
Research Article  |   September 01, 2014
Current Trends in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidate Selection and Postoperative Follow-Up
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kristin Uhler
    University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
    Marion Downs Hearing Center at the University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora
  • René H. Gifford
    Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.×
  • Correspondence to Kristin Uhler: Kristin.Uhler@ucdenver.edu
  • Editor and Associate Editor: Larry Humes
    Editor and Associate Editor: Larry Humes×
Article Information
Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Research Articles
Research Article   |   September 01, 2014
Current Trends in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidate Selection and Postoperative Follow-Up
American Journal of Audiology, September 2014, Vol. 23, 309-325. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0067
History: Received December 19, 2013 , Revised June 4, 2014 , Accepted June 27, 2014
 
American Journal of Audiology, September 2014, Vol. 23, 309-325. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0067
History: Received December 19, 2013; Revised June 4, 2014; Accepted June 27, 2014
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Purpose In this article, the authors describe current pediatric cochlear implant (CI) assessment and postoperative scheduling protocols in the United States.

Method A survey was conducted in 2 phases.

Results Response rates were similar between Phase I (10%) and Phase II (13%). Across phases, nearly all respondents reported assessing speech perception both preoperatively and postoperatively. The most frequently used parent questionnaires were the Infant–Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (Robbins, Renshaw, & Berry, 1991), the Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (Robbins et al., 1991), and LittlEARS (Kuehn-Inacken, Weichboldt, Tsiakpini, Coninx, & D'Haese, 2003). The most commonly used speech perception measure for children <23 months of age was the Early Speech Perception Test–Low Verbal (ESP-LV; Moog & Geers, 1990). The most commonly used measures for children 24–35 months of age were the ESP-LV, the Northwestern University of Children's Perception of Speech (Elliot & Katz, 1980), and the Mr. Potato Head task (Robbins, 1993). For children >36 months of age, there was a wide variety of speech perception tests utilized. Patient follow-up visits were weekly or biweekly immediately following CI activation, then every 3 months for the remainder of the 1st year. After the 1st year, most children were seen semiannually.

Conclusions Although trends emerged, there is a lack of consistency in the selection of speech perception measures utilized across centers for children <36 months of age. The development of a working group to establish a standard minimum pediatric test battery (similar to the adult Minimum Speech Test Battery) would promote uniformity in clinical protocols used to assess children who receive CIs.

Acknowledgments
Portions of this article were previously presented during the Special Session at the American Academy of Audiology, April 2013. Data collection and management via Research Electronic Data CAPture was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Grant UL1 TR000445). Special thanks to all individuals who completed this survey, to John Niparko and the meeting coordinators for the 2012 Cochlear and Hearing Implant Conference (held May 3–5, 2012, in Baltimore, MD), and to Amanda Herringer. Additionally, we express our sincere gratitude to Ann Rothpletz from the University of Louisville and to Christine Yoshinaga-Itano, Cory Portnuff, and Melinda Anderson at the University of Colorado for their helpful feedback and thoughtful review of this article.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access