Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
RESULTS OF COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION IN CHILDREN WITH
CONGENITAL CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION VERSUS GJB2
MUTATION
1
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University and Hospital Center of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Publication date: 2015-06-30
Corresponding author
Raquel Ferreira
Raquel Ferreira, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital and University of Coimbra, Maia, Portugal, e-mail: raquelf.santos@gmail.com
Raquel Ferreira, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital and University of Coimbra, Maia, Portugal, e-mail: raquelf.santos@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2015;5(2):36-41
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Children with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection face a bigger risk of neurological deficits and developmental delays associated with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Their rehabilitation with a cochlear implant (CI) may therefore be inferior to the paediatric population in general. This study describes post-implant outcomes in children with CMV-related deafness and compares them to children with genetic deafness caused by GJB2 mutation (connexin 26) rehabilitated at the Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Portugal.
Material and Methods:
We conducted a revision of 11 children with profound hearing loss caused by congenital CMV infection rehabilitated with a CI in our institution. The children were divided into 3 groups according to age of implantation (<2 years, 2–3 years, >3 years) and their performance was compared to a group of children with genetic hearing loss caused by GJB2 mutation. To compare performance the following tests were applied: SIR, CAP, vocal characteristics evaluation grid (VCEG), MAIS, and MUSS.
Results:
We found no differences between the two groups in terms of hearing thresholds obtained with a CI. In spite of a wider spread of results in the CMV group, there were no significant statistical differences in the SIR and VCEG tests or in the MAIS and MUSS questionnaires. There was a significant difference in the CAP test (p=0.049) where the GJB2 group had superior results.
Conclusions:
The present study has shown that the CMV group had poorer results for the CAP test and a wider spread of results in the other tests. However, the CMV group attained results comparable to children with profound hearing loss and no other deficit, and benefited from rehabilitation with a cochlear implant.
Children with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection face a bigger risk of neurological deficits and developmental delays associated with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Their rehabilitation with a cochlear implant (CI) may therefore be inferior to the paediatric population in general. This study describes post-implant outcomes in children with CMV-related deafness and compares them to children with genetic deafness caused by GJB2 mutation (connexin 26) rehabilitated at the Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Portugal.
Material and Methods:
We conducted a revision of 11 children with profound hearing loss caused by congenital CMV infection rehabilitated with a CI in our institution. The children were divided into 3 groups according to age of implantation (<2 years, 2–3 years, >3 years) and their performance was compared to a group of children with genetic hearing loss caused by GJB2 mutation. To compare performance the following tests were applied: SIR, CAP, vocal characteristics evaluation grid (VCEG), MAIS, and MUSS.
Results:
We found no differences between the two groups in terms of hearing thresholds obtained with a CI. In spite of a wider spread of results in the CMV group, there were no significant statistical differences in the SIR and VCEG tests or in the MAIS and MUSS questionnaires. There was a significant difference in the CAP test (p=0.049) where the GJB2 group had superior results.
Conclusions:
The present study has shown that the CMV group had poorer results for the CAP test and a wider spread of results in the other tests. However, the CMV group attained results comparable to children with profound hearing loss and no other deficit, and benefited from rehabilitation with a cochlear implant.
REFERENCES (12)
1.
Ciorba A, Bovo R, Trevisi P, Bianchini C, Arboretti R, Martini A. Rehabilitation and outcome of severe profound deafness in a group of 16 infants affected by congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2009; 266: 1539–46.
2.
Malik V, Bruce IA, Broomfield SJ, Henderson L, Green KM, Ramsden RT. Outcome of cochlear implantation in asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus deafened children. Laryngoscope, 2011; 121: 1780–4.
3.
de Vries JJ1, Vesseur A, Rotteveel LJ, Korver AM, Rusman LG, Wessels E et al. Cytomegalovirus DNA detection in dried blood spots and perilymphatic fluids from pediatric and adult cochlear implant recipients with prelingual deafness. J Clin Virol, 2013; 56(2): 113–7.
4.
Iwasaki S, Usami S. Hearing loss in children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. In: Manifestations of Cytomegalovirus Infection. Price P, Makana N, Brunt S (eds.), Intech, Croatia, 2013; 1–15.
5.
Edwards LC. Children with cochlear implants and complex needs: a review of outcome research and psychological practice. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 2007; 12(3): 258–68.
6.
Ogawa, H, Suzutani T, Baba Y, Koyano S, Nozawa N, Ishibashi K et al. Etiology of severe sensorineural hearing loss in children: independent impact of congenital cytomegalovirus infection and GJB2 mutations. J Infect Dis, 2007; 195(6): 782–8.
7.
Pyman B1, Blamey P, Lacy P, Clark G, Dowell R. The development of speech perception in children using cochlear implants: effects of etiologic factors and delayed milestones. Am J Otol, 2000; 21(1): 57–61.
8.
Lee DJ, Lustig L, Sampson M, Chinnici J, Niparko JK. Effects of cytomegalovirus (CMV) related deafness on pediatric cochlear implant outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2005; 133(6): 900–5.
9.
Yoshida H, Kanda Y, Takahashi H, Miyamoto I, Yamamoto T, Kumagami H. Cochlear implantation in children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Otol Neurotol, 2009; 30(6): 725–30.
10.
Ramirez JM, Nikolopoulos TP. Cochlear implantation in children deafened by cytomegalovirus: speech perception and speech intelligibility outcomes. Otol Neurotol, 2004; 25(4): 479–82.
11.
Viccaro M, Filipo R, Bosco E, Nicastri M, Mancini P. Long term follow-up of implanted children with cytomegalovirusrelated deafness. Audiol Neurotol, 2012; 17: 395–99.
12.
Matsui T, Ogawa H, Yamada N, Baba Y, Suzuki Y, Nomoto M et al. Outcome of cochlear implantation in children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection or GJB2 mutation. Acta Otolaryngol, 2012; 132(6): 597–602.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
