Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41128554›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Long-Term Outcomes of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A Western Australian Perspective.

Weijie Weng, Junru Gao, Carl Chase, Clack Rachel, Megan Jones, Stephen Rodrigues, Jafri Kuthubutheen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Weijie WengDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Junru GaoDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Carl ChaseDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Clack RachelDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Megan JonesDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Stephen RodriguesDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Jafri KuthubutheenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) for the management of pediatric single-sided deafness (SSD) in an Australian tertiary pediatric center.

designWe performed a retrospective review of data from the Western Australian childhood hearing implant program between 2014 and 2023. Patients with SSD age below 16 yr and undergoing unilateral CI at Perth Children's Hospital were included. Data collected included demographics, history, pre-CI assessment, language ability, Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB)-Sentence in Noise (SIN) results, CI usage hours, localization, and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale scores. Results were compared with and without CI where available.

resultsThere were 22 patients who underwent CI for SSD in the 10-yr period. A total of 54.5% were male and 45.5% were female. The average age at diagnosis was 4.2 yr (0.0 to 15.1, SD: 4.8). Six patients (27.3%) were classified as late-onset SSD and 16 (72.7%) as early SSD. The average time to implantation was 1.3 yr (0.1 to 3.9 yr, SD: 1.3). Eleven patients (50%) were classified as early CI and 11 patients as late CI. The average age at implantation was 5.5 yr (1.0 to 15.6 yr, SD: 4.7). The etiology of the SSD was unknown in 8 patients (36.7%). Three of our patients showed improvement in language ability 1 yr after implantation. No patients scored poorer compared with their pre-CI language assessment. Six of the 22 subjects (27.27%) underwent localization testing. There was no significant difference identified between CI and without CI for localization (20% versus 24%; p = 0.93). Thirteen of 22 (59.09%) completed BKB-speech-in-noise (SIN) testing. Five patients performed better in their BKB-SIN with their CI and 12 performed worse with their CI. Of these 5 patients, 3 were in the early-onset SSD group and 2 in the late-onset SSD group. Of the same 5 patients, 4 were classified as early CI and 1 was classified as late CI. The majority of patients who benefited with BKB-SIN (80%) and localization testing (75%) were classified as early CI, that is, within 1 yr of onset. The average SNR loss in the early SSD group was 2.91 (1.3 to 6) with CI and 2.84 (0.5 to 5.5) without CI ( p = 0.462). For late-onset SSD, the average with CI was 3.72 (0.01 to 6) and 3.78 (0.1 to 7.7) without CI ( p = 0.475). The overall average for all patients, with and without CI, was 3.28 versus 3.28. Eight patients (34.78%) completed the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale. The average CI usage was 4 hr/d (0 to 12.9, SD: 3.7).

conclusionsDespite a well-established newborn hearing screening program and equitable access to specialized services, our patients have variable long-term outcomes. While several patients showed benefit in speech in noise, high usage rates, and improved language skills, the challenge remains in consistently predicting and rehabilitating a heterogenous population of pediatric SSD patients. Patients who were classified as early CI recipients performed better, regardless of the onset of SSD.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationHearing Loss, UnilateralAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCochlear ImplantsDeafnessFemaleHumansInfantMaleRetrospective StudiesSpeech PerceptionTreatment OutcomeWestern AustraliaCochlear implantOutcomesPediatricsSingle-sided deafness

Identifiers

PMID41128554
PMCPMC12700685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.