loading page

Audiological Performance in Children with Inner Ear Malformations Before and After Cochlear Implantation
  • +2
  • Hilal Burcu Ozkan,
  • Esra Yücel,
  • Gonca Sennaroğlu,
  • Levent Sennaroğlu
Hilal Burcu Ozkan
Hacettepe University

Corresponding Author:odyburcu@hotmail.com

Author Profile
Hacettepe Universitesi
Author Profile
Esra Yücel
Hacettepe University
Author Profile
Gonca Sennaroğlu
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Levent Sennaroğlu
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Medicine
Author Profile


Objective: To evaluate the auditory perception outcomes of cochlear implant (CI) in children with different types of inner ear malformations (IEMs) and to compare them with CI users with the normal cochlea. Design: Retrospective and prospective data collection. Settings: Tertiary referral hospital. Participants: There were 274 CI users with and without IEMs as two groups. Both groups’ chronological age at implantation and duration of cochlear implant usage was matched (±8 months). Main outcome measures: All subjects were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with Ling’s sound test and auditory perception test battery, which includes the Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS), close-set Pattern Perception Test (PPT), and open-set Sentence Recognition Test (SRT). Also, children with IEMs were assessed for language development. Results: The incidence of IEMs were incomplete partition-II, 40 (29.19%), incomplete partition-I, 36 (26.2%), cochlear hypoplasia, 26 (18.9%), enlarged vestibular aqueduct, 14 (%10.2), incomplete partition-III, 10 (%7.2), common cavity, 8 (5.8%) and dilatation of vestibule, 3 (2.1%) patients. The significant difference was seen in Ling’s sound test and auditory perception test battery scores of children with incomplete partition-I, cochlear hypoplasia, and common cavity (p-value < .005). Conclusion: IEMs group showed different progress according to the type of ear anomaly. Although CI users with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) had the highest scores, users with common cavity had the lowest scores. Taking these results, caused by anatomical differences, in to account is very critical in follow-ups and rehabilitation programs. Each cochlear implant user should be evaluated according to his/her individual needs.
10 May 2020Submitted to Clinical Otolaryngology
11 May 2020Submission Checks Completed
11 May 2020Assigned to Editor
26 May 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
02 Jun 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Jun 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major
14 Jul 20201st Revision Received
15 Jul 2020Submission Checks Completed
15 Jul 2020Assigned to Editor
15 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
21 Jul 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
22 Jul 20202nd Revision Received
23 Jul 2020Submission Checks Completed
23 Jul 2020Assigned to Editor
24 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
26 Jul 2020Editorial Decision: Accept