Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children with white matter lesions

Abstract

Objective

White matter lesions (WMLs) are the most common central nervous system changes observed during cochlear implant evaluation. However, its clinical significance in cochlear implantation (CI) remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of WMLs on hearing and speech rehabilitation of prelingually deaf children after CI.

Methods

The data of forty-five children with WMLs who received CI from 2011 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging examination preoperatively. The categories of auditory performance (CAP) and speech intelligibility rating (SIR) scales were used to evaluate changes in the auditory and speech abilities of the patients, and the Fazekas scale was adopted to assess the extent of WMLs. The degree of WMLs was divided into four grades (none, mild, moderate, severe). We assessed hearing and speech abilities at the following time points: 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60-months post-operation.

Results

No significant differences in CAP scores were observed between WMLs groups and the control group at 12 months post-CI (p = 0.099), but marked between-group differences were found at 6, 24, 48- and 60-months post-CI. (p < 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences in the SIR scores were observed at 6 months post-CI (p = 0.087), but marked between-group differences were found at 12, 24, 48- and 60- months post-CI. (p < 0.05). Analysis of stratified group results revealed improvements in hearing and speech development for all the subgroups, including the severe WMLs subgroup following CI. However, hearing and speech ability of the severe WMLs subgroup was much slower than that of other groups.

Conclusions

The auditory and speech abilities of prelingually deaf children with WMLs and those without WMLs can improve after CI. Therefore, WMLs should not be considered a contraindication for CI. However, the decision to perform CI in such patients needs a comprehensive evaluation because the post-surgery effects on children with severe WMLs are not ideal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Wilson BS, Tucci DL, Merson MH, O'Donoghue GM (2017) Global hearing health care: new findings and perspectives. The Lancet 390(10111):2503–2515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31073-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hong P, Jurkowski ZC, Carvalho DS (2010) Preoperative cerebral magnetic resonance imaging and white matter changes in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74(6):658–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.03.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jonas NE, Ahmed J, Grainger J, Jephson CG, Wyatt ME, Hartley BE, Saunders D, Cochrane LA (2012) MRI brain abnormalities in cochlear implant candidates: How common and how important are they? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76(7):927–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.02.070

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lapointe A, Viamonte C, Morriss MC, Manolidis S (2006) Central nervous system findings by magnetic resonance in children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 70(5):863–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.09.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Young JY, Ryan ME, Young NM (2014) Preoperative imaging of sensorineural hearing loss in pediatric candidates for cochlear implantation. Radiographics Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 34(5):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.345130083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Woodward LJ, Anderson PJ, Austin NC, Howard K, Inder TE (2006) Neonatal MRI to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 355(7):685–694. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa053792

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Iwata S, Nakamura T, Hizume E, Kihara H, Takashima S, Matsuishi T, Iwata O (2012) Qualitative brain MRI at term and cognitive outcomes at 9 years after very preterm birth. Pediatrics 129(5):e1138–1147. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Moon IJ, Kim EY, Park G-Y, Jang MS, Kim JH, Lee J, Chung W-H, Cho Y-S, Hong SH (2012) The clinical significance of preoperative brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurotol 17(6):373–380. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Xu X-Q, Wu F-Y, Hu H, Su G-Y, Shen J (2015) Incidence of Brain Abnormalities Detected on Preoperative brain MR imaging and their effect on the outcome of cochlear implantation in children with sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Biomed Imaging 2015:6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/275786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Luthra S, Nagarkar A (2010) 1418 Leukodystrophy & its effects on rehabilitation of children with cochlear implant: a preliminary case study. Pediatr Res 68(1):701–701. https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-201011001-01418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Archbold S, Lutman ME, Nikolopoulos T (1998) Categories of auditory performance: inter-user reliability. Br J Audiol 32(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.3109/03005364000000045

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Allen MC, Nikolopoulos TP, O'Donoghue GM (1998) Speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implanation. Otol Neurotol 19(6):742–746

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fazekas F, Chawluk J, Alavi A, Hurtig H, Zimmerman R (1987) MR signal abnormalities at 1.5 T in Alzheimer's dementia and normal aging. Am J Roentgenol 149(2):351–356

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Smith RJH, Bale JF, White KR (2005) Sensorineural hearing loss in children. The Lancet 365(9462):879–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71047-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Davis A, Wood S (1992) The epidemiology of childhood hearing impairment: factor relevant to planning of services. Br J Audiol 26(2):77–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/03005369209077875

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fortnum HM, Marshall DH, Summerfield AQ (2002) Epidemiology of the UK population of hearing-impaired children, including characteristics of those with and without cochlear implants–audiology, aetiology, comorbidity and affluence. Int J Audiol 41(3):170–179. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020209077181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    van Beeck Calkoen EA, Sanchez Aliaga E, Merkus P, Smit CF, van de Kamp JM, Mulder MF, Goverts ST, Hensen EF (2017) High prevalence of abnormalities on CT and MR imaging in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss irrespective of age or degree of hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 97:185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Collins SE, Spencer-Smith M, Mürner-Lavanchy I, Kelly CE, Pyman P, Pascoe L, Cheong J, Doyle LW, Thompson DK, Anderson PJ (2019) White matter microstructure correlates with mathematics but not word reading performance in 13-year-old children born very preterm and full-term. NeuroImage Clin 24:101944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101944

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Inder TE, Warfield SK, Wang H, Hüppi PS, Volpe JJ (2005) Abnormal cerebral structure is present at term in premature infants. Pediatrics 115(2):286–294. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Woodward LJ, Clark CAC, Bora S, Inder TE (2012) Neonatal white matter abnormalities an important predictor of neurocognitive outcome for very preterm children. PLoS ONE 7(12):e51879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051879

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vickers D, De Raeve L, Graham J (2016) International survey of cochlear implant candidacy. Cochlear Implants Int 17(sup1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1155809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Levi-montalcini R (1949) The development of the acoustico-vestibular centres in the chick embryo in the absence of the afferent root fibers and of descending fiber tracts. J Comp Neurol 91(2):209–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.900910204

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Matthews MR, Powell TP (1962) Some observations on transneuronal cell degeneration in the olfactory bulb of the rabbit. J Anat 96:89–102

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Westenbroek RE, Westrum LE, Hendrickson AE, Wu JY (1988) Ultrastructure of synaptic remodeling in piriform cortex of adult rats after neonatal olfactory bulb removal: an immunocytochemical study. J Comp Neurol 274(3):334–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902740304

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ryugo DK, Kretzmer EA, Niparko JK (2005) Restoration of auditory nerve synapses in cats by cochlear implants. Science (New York, NY) 310(5753):1490–1492. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119419

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ryugo DK, Rosenbaum BT, Kim PJ, Niparko JK, Saada AA (1998) Single unit recordings in the auditory nerve of congenitally deaf white cats: morphological correlates in the cochlea and cochlear nucleus. J Comp Neurol 397(4):532–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19980810)397:4%3c532:aid-cne6%3e3.0.co;2-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    CM F (2012) The behavioral neurology of white matter, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by funding from the project of the Anhui Provincial Education Department and Boston scientific (No.9021082201).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianxin Qiu or Kun Yao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have read and approved the manuscript and have no conflict of interest of this paper.

Informed consent

Approval for this study was obtained from the local ethics committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, P.R. China. Written informed consent of both parents to the patients was obtained before the study. All data were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, S., Zheng, W., Li, H. et al. Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children with white matter lesions. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 323–329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06075-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cochlear implantation
  • White matter lesions
  • Children
  • Sensorineural hearing loss
  • Speech rehabilitation