ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PARTIAL DEAFNESS TREATMENT IN CHILDREN: A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVE
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, ul. Zgrupowania AK “Kampinos” 1, 01-943 Warszawa, Poland
2
World Hearing Center, ul. Mokra 17, Kajetany 05-830 Nadarzyn, Poland
3
Dept. Social Psychology and Methodology of the Behavioural Sciences, University of Granada, Spain
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Anita Obrycka   

Anita Obrycka, e-mail: a.obrycka@ifps.org.pl
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(2):61–69
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Cochlear implant (CI) eligibility criteria have broadened recently to include individuals with partial deafness (PD). In 2002, the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Poland, pioneered a particular technique of cochlear implantation termed partial deafness treatment (PDT) and achieved unrivalled rates of functional hearing preservation. Encouraged by the results in adults, a pediatric PDT program was initiated in 2004. The outcome of PDT for both adults and children has been well documented and assessed with objective measures of sound detection and speech discrimination. The current study explores outcomes in real life rather than in a clinical setting. We hypothesized that if PDT provides children with renewed listening ability it is likely to have a major impact on family life and that this impact should be able to be documented by parental reports.

Material and Method:
Seven parents of PDT cochlear-implanted children were surveyed using 20 open-ended prompts. The questionnaires were sent to patients’ homes. The parents were asked to answer the prompts in their own words.

Results:
All parents reported that after their child received cochlear implant there was a significant improvement in speech understanding and better perception of high pitched sounds. More than half the parents also noticed positive changes in speech production. The changes in communication abilities after CI positively influenced the child’s relationships with family members and school mates.

Conclusions:
The results of this study support expanding the criteria for receiving a cochlear implant to include children with partial deafness.

 
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A: A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2003; 9(4): CS20–24.
 
2.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Oto-laryngologica, 2007; 127(1): 41–48.
 
3.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006; 126(9): 934–40.
 
4.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Partial deafness cochlear implantation in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2007; 71(9): 1407–13.
 
5.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ et al: Hearing preservation surgery: psychophysical estimates of cochlear damage in recipients of a short electrode array. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 124(4): 2164–73.
 
6.
Lorens A, Polak M, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski H: Outcomes of Treatment of Partial Deafness with Cochlear Implantation: A DUET Study. The Laryngoscope, 2008; 118(2): 288–94.
 
7.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A: Electric acoustic stimulation in children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 135–43.
 
8.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski PH: Hearing preservation in partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2010; 16(11): CR555–62.
 
9.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M et al: Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurotol, 2012; 17(2): 82–911.
 
10.
Archbold SM, Lutman ME, Gregory S et al: Parents and their deaf child: their perceptions three years after cochlear implantation. Deafness and Education International, 2002; 4(1): 12–40.
 
11.
Nikolopoulos TP, Lloyd H, Archbold S, O’Donoghue G: Pediatric Cochlear Implantation. The Parents’ Perspective. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2001; 127: 363–67.
 
12.
Huttunen K, Rimmanen S, Vikman S et al: Parents’ views on the quality of life of their children 2–3 years after cochlear Implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2009; 73: 1786–94.
 
13.
Dettman SJ, D’Costa WA, Dowell RC et al: Cochlear implants for children with significant residual hearing. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2004; 130(5): 612–18.
 
14.
Aiken LR: Questionnaires and inventories. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.
 
15.
Schuman H, Presser S: Questions & answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
 
16.
Foddy W: Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires. Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
 
17.
Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D: Speech recognition of hearingimpaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 103(2): 1128–40.
 
18.
Hogan CA, Turner CW: High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 104(1): 432–41.
 
19.
Turner CW, Cummings KJ: Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 1999; 8(1): 47–56.
 
20.
Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM et al: The Importance of High-Frequency Audibility in the Speech and Language Development of Children With Hearing Loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2004; 130: 556–62.
 
21.
Grant L, Bow C, Paatsch L, Blamey P: Comparison of production of /s/ and /z/ between children using cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. Proceedings of the 9th Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology; Australian Speech Science & Technology Association Inc., Melbourne, 2002; 160–65.
 
22.
Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Muller JM et al: Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2003; 5: 207–49.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X