Next Article in Journal
Effects of Perceptual Learning on Deprivation Amblyopia in Children with Limbal Dermoid: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Next Article in Special Issue
Hearing Benefits of Clinical Management for Meniere’s Disease
Previous Article in Journal
WT1 Gene Mutations, rs16754 Variant, and WT1 Overexpression as Prognostic Factors in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical and Genetic Characteristics of Finnish Patients with Autosomal Recessive and Dominant Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss Due to Pathogenic TMC1 Variants
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients

1
Unité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, Département d’Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire Pitié-Salpêtrière, APHP Sorbonne Université, 75013 Paris, France
2
Technologie et Thérapie Génique de la Surdité, Inserm/Institut Pasteur, Institut de l’Audition, 75012 Paris, France
3
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Translational Medicine on Ear and Nose Diseases (14DZ2260300), Department of Otolaryngology-HNS, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao-Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(7), 1874; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071874
Submission received: 9 February 2022 / Revised: 14 March 2022 / Accepted: 21 March 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hearing Disorders: Diagnosis, Management, and Future Opportunities)

Abstract

:
Cochlear implantation is usually not recommended for prelingual profoundly deaf adults, although some of these patients might benefit from it. This study aims to define the candidates for cochlear implantation in this population. This retrospective study reviewed 34 prelingual profoundly deaf patients who had received a cochlear implant at 32 ± 1.7 years old (16–55), with at least 1 year of follow-up. Speech perception and quality of life were assessed before and 3, 6, and 12 months after cochlear implantation, then every year thereafter. According to the word speech intelligibility in quiet (WSI) 1 year after implantation, two groups were identified: good performer (GP) with WSI ≥ 50% (n = 15), and poor performer (PP) with WSI ≤ 40% (n = 19). At the 1 year mark, mean WSI improved by 28 ± 4.6% (−20–100) (p < 0.0001). In GP, the intelligibility for words and sentences, communication and quality of life scales improved. In PP, the communication scale improved, but not auditory performance or quality of life. GP and PP differed pre-operatively in speech production, communication abilities, and WSI in best-aided conditions. In prelingual profoundly deaf adults, a dramatic auditory performance benefit could be expected after cochlear implantation if the patients have some degree of speech intelligibility in aided conditions and have developed oral communication and speech production.

1. Introduction

Cochlear implantation is a well-established treatment to restore communication in patients with post-lingual severe-to-profound hearing loss regarding their age, and in prelingually deaf infants [1,2,3]. Because of the short sensitive period for language development in infants, the shorter the auditory deprivation, the better the auditory performance and oral language acquisition that would be achieved after cochlear implantation [4,5]. Indeed, late cochlear implantation (after 5 years of age) is usually not recommended for non-progressive congenital or prelingual profound hearing loss [6,7], as prelingual profoundly deaf patients implanted when adults achieved lower auditory performance with their cochlear implant than those of post-lingual cochlear implanted users [8,9], although several studies have emphasized some benefits in auditory scores [8,10,11,12,13,14,15], quality of life [16,17], or self-esteem [11] in these late-implanted prelingual profoundly deaf patients. However, some patients implanted when adult who achieved poor performance after cochlear implantation have been reported to abandon the device [13], raising the question of who would be the prelingual profoundly deaf adult candidates to achieve sufficient benefit for a daily use. In a recent systematic review of the literature, there were not enough data to predict the auditory performance and analyze the prognosis factors of cochlear implantation outcomes in this population [18,19]. Most of the studies were small and heterogenous, including late-implanted prelingually and/or perilingually deaf patients, presumably because of the few validated indications to date for cochlear implantation in these populations.
The aim of the present study is to analyze cochlear implantation outcomes in a population of prelingual profoundly deaf adults to define the putative candidates who would attain a real benefit in daily life.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

A monocentric retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral center and included patients with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implant for a prelingual bilateral profound hearing loss, which were implanted over 15 years old without an upper age limit, between 2004 and 2019. The decision for a cochlear implantation was made after a multidisciplinary evaluation that included clinical, audiometric, speech, psychological and radiological assessments, and in accordance with the national guidelines for cochlear implantation [6,7,20], i.e., a speech discrimination ≤50% at 60 dB for disyllabic words in silence in the best-aided conditions. Patients were selected among a cohort of all cochlear implant recipients operated on in our department and noted as “congenital hearing loss” (Figure 1). Selection criteria were: (1) prelingual hearing loss diagnosed before the age of 4 years old, reported as severe to profound at diagnosis according to the medical file; (2) postoperative follow-up of at least 1 year; and (3) preoperative audiometric data available. Unilateral or bilateral, either simultaneous or sequential, cochlear implantations were performed with 3 different cochlear implant brands from Cochlear™, Med-El™, and Oticon™. Decision making for a bilateral cochlear implantation was dependent on deafness history, patient’s request and motivation. All surgeries and devices were covered by government funds. Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation was performed with the objective of achieving a better performance, especially in noisy conditions.
All patients or parents of teenagers provided written informed consent allowing the analysis of their data in accordance with the reference methodology of the National Commission for Data Protection and Liberties (CNIL-France, N°2040854). The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki code (“World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations Guiding Physicians in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects”, 1997).
Data were collected on demographics, characteristics of hearing loss, pre-operative audiometric measurements, pre- and postoperative speech evaluation, and communication skills assessment. According to the medical charts, etiology, age and degree of hearing loss at diagnosis, age of first hearing aid fitting, and duration of hearing aid use were collected. A genetic cause of hearing loss was either proved by molecular analysis (Sanger), in the case of a bi-allelic mutation of GJB2 (CONNEXIN 26 gene), or assumed to be a genetic-related hearing loss because of a familial history of similar hearing loss in a first-degree relative, or because of characteristic inner ear malformation (bilateral enlarged vestibular aqueduct). Socio-professional categories were classified into seven classes according to the main stages of French education (Poitrenaud’s scale—Table S1) [21].

2.2. Auditory Performance and Communication Evaluations

Hearing was evaluated in a soundproof booth first with headphones and then in free field in quiet. Before implantation, pure tone average (PTA) and speech intelligibility without hearing aid using disyllabic words (Fournier lists) were measured with headphones. Speech intelligibility without and with lip-reading was evaluated in free field with a signal presented at 60 dB HL from the front, in best-aided conditions (with either uni- or bilateral hearing aids) before implant, and with cochlear implant alone after implantation. The following tests were systematically conducted in quiet: speech intelligibility using disyllabic words (Word Speech Intelligibility, WSI) and speech intelligibility for sentences (Marginal Benefit for Acoustic Amplification, MBAA). The results are expressed as the percentage of correct words for disyllabic lists, and as the percentage of correct words and sentences for the MBAA sentences.
The main outcome was WSI with cochlear implant alone 1 year after implantation. For simultaneous or sequential bilateral implantations, the evaluation was performed unilaterally on the best ear or first implanted ear, respectively. Patients were divided in two groups according to WSI with cochlear implant alone at 1 year: good performer (GP) when WSI ranged between 50% and 100%, and poor performer (PP) when WSI was less than 50%. A WSI below 50% was considered as a poor performance as it corresponds to the 25th percentile of all cochlear implant adult recipients in our center during the same period (n = 612, unpublished data).
Before implantation, auditory tests in noisy conditions were not performed because of the severity of hearing loss. In some instances, speech intelligibility achieved sufficient level 1 year after implantation to be tested in noisy conditions, which was performed with a speech-to-noise ratio of 10 dB (SNR10), and subsequently each year. For patients with a sequential bilateral implantation, a complementary analysis compared the auditory performance in best-aided conditions before and 1 year after the second implantation.
Communication skills were assessed before and after implantation using the Category of Auditory Performance scale (CAP, Table S2) [22], scaled from 1 (no awareness of environmental sound) to 9 (can use the telephone with an unfamiliar talker). The usual mode of communication used before implantation was noted (code, sign language or oral). Moreover, the scores obtained with the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire were also studied, expressed from 0 (no difficulty) to 100% (maximal impact of hearing loss on communication) [23]. The language assessment was performed before implantation using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR, Table S3), scaled from 1 (pre-recognizable words in spoken language) to 5 (connected speech intelligible to all listeners; the patient is easily understood in everyday contexts) [24]. After implantation, the follow-up protocol was standardized, and results were assessed using speech intelligibility for disyllabic words and MBAA scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, APHAB and CAP at 1 year, and every year thereafter.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism® (version 8.2.0, San Diego, CA, USA). Values were expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM) (min–max). Two-way ANOVA, Wilcoxon, and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare quantitative data, and Fisher’s and chi-squared tests were used for qualitative data. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

3. Results

3.1. Population

Thirty-four patients were included in the study (Table 1). Hearing loss was diagnosed at 21 ± 2.2 months (1–46), as severe and profound in 15 cases (44%) and 19 cases (56%), respectively. At the age of implantation (32 ± 1.7 years (16–55)), all patients were profoundly deaf (non-aided auditory thresholds >90 dB for both ears), and the mean preoperative WSI in best-aided conditions was 12 ± 2.4% (0–50). A confirmed or presumed genetic cause of hearing loss was found for 50% of patients (n = 17), including 12 patients with a confirmed mutation of GJB2 (CONNEXINE 26 gene). The other etiologies were unknown for 11 (32%), intra-uterine infection for 4 (12%), a neonatal meningitis for 1 (3%), and a prematurity for 1 (3%). Implantation was unilateral for 18 patients (53%), bilateral sequential for 9 (26%), and bilateral simultaneous for 7 (21%). All preoperative data are detailed in Table 1.

3.2. Cochlear Implant Outcomes

Post-implantation follow-up was 4 ± 0.5 years (1–10). The mean WSI at 1 year was 36 ± 5.1% (0–100), and the median was 35% (interquartile range (7.5–60)). Compared to the preoperative scores, the mean WSI improved by 28 ± 4.6% (−20–100) (p < 0.0001, n = 34, Wilcoxon test). At 1 year post-implantation, 15 patients (44%) achieved a WSI of at least 50%, and the 19 others (56%) inferior to 50%; they were considered as good (GP) and poor (PP) performers, respectively (Table 1).
As shown in Figure 2A, WSI increased as early as 3 months post-implantation for GP to reach 65 ± 4.1% (50–100) at 1 year (p < 0.0001, two-way ANOVA, n = 15, Table 2). Excellent WSI scores ranging from 70 to 100% were achieved in seven cases, four being unilaterally implanted and the other three being contra-laterally operated on later (Table 1). For PP, no significant improvement was observed with a difference of +10 ± 3.3% (0–20) 1 year after implantation compared to preoperative scores (p = 0.052, two-way ANOVA, n = 19) (Table 2). Moreover, no word recognition was obtained in eight cases, half of them having been bilaterally and simultaneously implanted (Table 1). Whatever the auditory performance achieved after 1 year, WSI remained stable up to 10 years (Figure 2B).
Speech intelligibility for sentences without lipreading increased as early as 6 months post-implantation for GP achieving 64 ± 5.2% (33–100) at 1 year (p = 0.0007, two-way ANOVA, n = 12), but not for PP (Figure 2C, Table 2).
The addition of lip-reading did not change the WSI in the two groups: 74 ± 9.3% (0–100) (n = 14) vs. 98 ± 2.0% (90–100) (n = 5) for GP (p > 0.9, Wilcoxon test) and 58 ± 7.9% (0–90) (n = 17) vs. 56 ± 10.9% (0–100) (n = 13) for PP (p = 0.8, Wilcoxon test) before and 1 year after implantation, respectively.
Communication evaluated using the CAP score improved at 1 year post-implantation in both PP and GP (respectively p = 0.015 and p = 0.0003, chi-squared test, Table 2). At 1 year post-implantation, all patients of the GP group improved the CAP score, and 86% of them (n = 12/14 patients) reached a CAP ≥ 6, being able to understand common phrases without lip-reading. For PP, an improvement of the CAP score was achieved in 11/16 patients (69%), for whom CAP was available preoperatively and 1 year post-implantation, reaching a CAP ≥ 6 in only 35% of them.
Compared to the preoperative score, the APHAB score decreased 1 year after implantation for GP (−28 ± 3.6 (−38 to −18), n = 10, p < 0.0001), showing an improvement of their quality of life, and remained stable up to the second year of follow-up. No change on the APHAB score was observed for PP (Figure 2D).
Among the 34 implanted patients, 32 (94%) were all day long users, and time to time for the 2 others who were in the PP group. No patient has abandoned the device in the long term.

3.3. Analysis of Preoperative Factors

The 2 groups were similar in terms of age at diagnosis of hearing loss (p = 0.5, Mann–Whitney test), etiology of hearing loss (p = 0.2, chi-squared test), preoperative PTA (p = 0.3 and p = 0.08, respectively, for ipsi- and contralateral ear, Mann–Whitney test), age at first implantation (p = 0.7, Mann–Whitney test), and socio-professional categories (p = 0.2, chi-squared test) (Table 1). However, in best-aided conditions, preoperative speech intelligibility for disyllabic words without and with lip-reading was higher for GP compared to PP (p = 0.022 and p = 0.012, respectively, Mann–Whitney test, Figure 3A).
All patients except eight were equipped with a bilateral hearing aid at the time of diagnosis of deafness, with no significant difference between the two groups for age of the first hearing aid (p = 0.7 and p = 0.4, respectively, for ipsi- and contralateral ear, Mann–Whitney test, Table 1). Among the eight remaining patients (24%), six were PP: one patient did not use any hearing aid before cochlear implantation, two were equipped in only one ear at the time of diagnosis, and three were equipped several years after diagnosis. The last two were GP: one patient had a bilateral hearing aid at the age of 5 years, and one was equipped in only one ear at the time of diagnosis (Table 1). At the time of implantation, 29 patients (85%) used their hearing aid in the implanted ear up to surgery, except for PP, a patient who never used a hearing aid, and 3 who had abandoned their hearing aid, and for GP, 1 patient had abandoned the hearing aid 5 years before implantation. There was no difference in the duration of hearing loss without hearing aid between the two groups (p = 0.8, Mann–Whitney test, Table 1).
All patients, apart from 2 in PP, used oral communication before implantation, alone (20/34 patients, 59%) or in combination with sign language in (12/34 patients, 35%) (Table 1). More patients used only oral communication in GP compared to PP (87% vs. 37%, p = 0.005, Fisher’s test). Additionally, the preoperative SIR scores in GP were higher compared to PP (p = 0.003, chi-squared test, Figure 3B), 93% of GP patients having a connected speech intelligible to a listener who had no experience (score of 5) or little experience (score of 4) of a deaf person’s speech. Finally, the preoperative CAP scores in GP were high compared to PP (p = 0.03, chi-squared test, Figure 3C).

3.4. Benefits of Bilateralisation in the Case of Sequential Cochlear Implantation

A total of 9 patients (26%) had a sequential implantation, 5/15 and 4/19 in GP and PP, respectively, with a mean delay between the 2 implantations of 3 ± 0.9 (0.5–7.8) years. All these patients were still using their hearing aid in the non-implanted ear until the contralateral implantation. When comparing the auditory performance in best-aided conditions, no difference was found for WSI or for sentences intelligibility in quiet and in noise before and 1 year after the second cochlear implantation (Table 3). Additionally, there was no difference for APHAB score, nor for CAP score (Table 3). Although no difference was objectified, all sequential bilaterally implanted patients whatever the performance group used both cochlear implant processor all day long, and speech intelligibility scores in noisy conditions for sentences and words in sentences improved by more than 20% in GP (not significant), but not in PP (Table 3).

4. Discussion

In the present retrospective study, 34 adult patients with profound prelingual hearing loss were included and demonstrated a dramatic increase in auditory performance as evaluated 1 year after cochlear implantation with 1 cochlear implant alone using disyllabic words in quiet, regardless of whether patients were unilaterally or bilaterally implanted, although scores ranged from none to 100%. This is in line with other studies on series of patients demonstrating improvements for words [10,11,16], phonemes [10,13,25], and sentence recognition scores in quiet [10,11,12,13,16,17,26,27,28], although prelingual and peri-lingual hearing loss were in most cases mixed. This study reports among the largest cohorts of prelingually deaf adults cochlear implant recipients in the literature and analyzes the outcomes in terms of speech intelligibility for words and sentences, as well as in terms of quality of life and communication skills.
In this series, 44% of patients experienced a dramatic increase in auditory performance with a mean speech intelligibility in silence of 65 ± 4.1% (GP), similar to post-lingually implanted profoundly deaf adult scores (67% to 76% depending on the test used [1,29,30]). Accordingly, the speech intelligibility for disyllabic words in quiet of all the patients in the French cohort recently implanted at adult age reached 67% [30]. Having such good performance after a delayed cochlear implantation is a surprising fact, as it is commonly accepted that auditory performance after cochlear implantation in adults is significantly lower in patients with prelingual hearing loss compared to post-lingually acquired hearing loss, and that the duration of auditory deprivation is a major prognostic factor [8,9,31]. However, some prelingually deaf patients, who did not have a cochlear implant at an early stage, could really benefit from a cochlear implantation even if delayed, and obtain better speech intelligibility, as well as improved communication skills and quality of life.
For the other 56% of prelingually deaf patients with poor auditory performance (PP), a slight or no improvement was observed for disyllabic word intelligibility 1 year after the cochlear implantation with no further improvement, at variance with previously reported by others [32,33,34]. However, the everyday communication, as evaluated with the CAP score, was improved, and most of the recipients, except two, are all day long users. Moreover, some of them asked for a second cochlear implant on the other ear. Thus, judging the input of the cochlear implantation only on auditory performance does not give a complete picture of the individual benefit in this population.
Concerning subjective evaluation, the APHAB questionnaire, specific to hearing loss, quantifies the trouble experienced in communicating in everyday life situations, and is routinely used to evaluate post-lingual deaf adults. Prelingually deaf adults have a long history of coping with their hearing handicap and have developed communication strategies so that they are not as dramatically affected in their social communication as post-lingually deaf adults. In this study, they obtained better scores in the APHAB questionnaire compared to post-lingual hearing-impaired adults before implantation [30]. Therefore, this questionnaire is probably insufficient to highlight the benefit of cochlear implantation in the particular cases of prelingual poor performers. Other studies have shown that the main improvements for this deaf population were on primary sound processing, sense of safety, and self-confidence [11,16]. If the cochlear implant does not provide enough improvement for speech perception without lip-reading, it could be a real help in audiovisual conditions, processing environmental sounds, or at least as an alert device. The subjective benefit and preoperative expectations have to be taken into account to assess the real input of cochlear implantation in this population.
Based on this study, multiple preoperative factors could predict good auditory performance after cochlear implantation. First, preoperative speech perception in best-aided conditions, with or without lip-reading, appears to be a good preoperative prognostic factor, as already reported [10,15,28,35]. Second, preoperative communication, referring to the type of language used by the patient (code, sign language, or oral) and to the CAP score, appeared to be a major prognostic factor, as already mentioned in several studies [15,16,25,26,28]. In this study, most patients used oral communication, alone or in combination with signed language, showing probably some benefit of their hearing aid and a history of intensive speech therapy in childhood. Preoperative communication is probably an indicator of whether the auditory cortex has a quite normal organization or not, as it has been proved that visual processing causes a functional shift of the auditory cortex into the visual processing pathway [36]. In addition, the intelligibility of the patient’s speech appears to be a prognostic factor in this study as in others [15,16,25,35], suggesting that the better the patient’s speech was, the better their oral and auditory skills were developed in childhood. Third, hearing aid use until the day of cochlear implantation should also be taken into consideration before making the decision for cochlear implantation in an adult prelingually deaf patient, even though it does not appear to be a significant prognostic factor in this study, since the great majority of included patients wore their hearing aid until the cochlear implantation. However, most of the patients who did not wear hearing aids for a long period of several years did not achieve any word recognition. Finally, patient’s motivation has to be deeply analyzed before cochlear implantation. In this study, patients came with a request for improved communication, often in the context of a change in their everyday life, such as starting higher education, new work, family, of after meeting cochlear implant recipients. Based on these results, we propose a decision algorithm for cochlear implantation in adulthood in the case of prelingual deafness (Figure 4). A bilateral simultaneous implantation should be discussed with great caution even in front of an express demand of the patient and/or his/her family. Alternatively, the benefit of a bilateral sequential implantation has to be made on a longer period of follow-up than 1 year after the contralateral procedure to evidence better performance in noisy conditions than with a unilateral cochlear implant [37]. Whether a contralateral implantation should be restricted to good performers or to all the patients is still a matter of debate.
This study has some limitations, as it was a retrospective analysis, with some missing data, making the power of the study weaker. Additionally, a selection bias is possible since the diagnosis of hearing loss was made many years ago. In addition, some patients who were operated on several years earlier, especially patients using sign language alone, were lost to follow-up, or were not evaluated properly before implantation, and were not included in this study (Figure 1). Finally, it would be interesting to evaluate the duration of post-operative speech therapy reeducation, which is probably longer for patients with prelingual hearing loss compared to post-lingual ones.

5. Conclusions

Cochlear implantation could be considered an adequate option for adults with prelingual onset profound hearing loss who request it, after an exhaustive evaluation of speech intelligibility, communication, speech production and expectations of the patient. For patients with developed oral communication, good speech production, and some degree of speech intelligibility with their hearing aid, a dramatic benefit should be expected, making these patients good candidates for cochlear implantation at the adult age. For those who experienced no measurable benefit on speech perception, the use of the cochlear implant processor might improve their communication skills. A proper assessment, adapted to these non-conventional cochlear implantation candidates, is thus needed pre- and post-operatively for this particular population of prelingual profoundly deaf adults.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11071874/s1, Table S1: Socio-professional levels according to Poitrenaud’s scale. Table S2: The Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scale. Table S3: The Speech Intelligibility Rating scale (SIR) scale.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L., E.F., O.S. and I.M.; methodology, G.L. and E.F.; software, G.L.; validation, O.S., Y.N. and I.M.; formal analysis, G.L. and H.J.; investigation, G.L., H.D. and M.D.B.; data curation, G.L., H.D. and M.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; writing—review and editing, O.S., E.F. and I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due its retrospective nature with no intervention.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on re-quest from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restriction.

Acknowledgments

We thank Fondation pour l’Audition and Institut Pasteur for their support (Starting Grant IDA 2020). We would like to acknowledge Emmanuelle Ambert-Dahan and Amélie Callies for their help in collecting data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lenarz, M.; Sönmez, H.; Joseph, G.; Büchner, A.; Lenarz, T. Long-Term Performance of Cochlear Implants in Postlingually Deafened Adults. Otolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. 2012, 147, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gaylor, J.M.; Raman, G.; Chung, M.; Lee, J.; Rao, M.; Lau, J.; Poe, D.S. Cochlear implantation in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. 2013, 139, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. McRackan, T.R.; Bauschard, M.; Hatch, J.L.; Franko-Tobin, E.; Droghini, H.R.; Nguyen, S.A.; Dubno, J.R. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 982–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Black, J.; Hickson, L.; Black, B.; Perry, C. Prognostic indicators in paediatric cochlear implant surgery: A systematic literature review. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2011, 12, 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moreno-Torres, I.; Madrid-Cánovas, S.; Blanco-Montañez, G. Sensitive periods and language in cochlear implant users. J. Child Lang. 2016, 43, 479–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. HAS. Le Traitement de la Surdité par Implants Cochléaires ou du Tronc Cérébral; HAS: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Simon, F.; Roman, S.; Truy, E.; Barone, P.; Belmin, J.; Blanchet, C.; Borel, S.; Charpiot, A.; Coez, A.; Deguine, O.; et al. Guidelines (short version) of the French society of otorhinolaryngology (SFORL) on pediatric cochlear implant indications. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2019, 136, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, R.S.; Mawman, D.; Sankaran, D.; Melling, C.; O’Driscoll, M.; Freeman, S.M.; Lloyd, S.K.W. Cochlear implantation in early deafened, late implanted adults: Do they benefit? Cochlear Implant. Int. 2016, 17, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kraaijenga, V.J.C.; Smit, A.L.; Stegeman, I.; Smilde, J.J.M.; van Zanten, G.A.; Grolman, W. Factors that influence outcomes in cochlear implantation in adults, based on patient-related characteristics—A retrospective study. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2016, 41, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arisi, E.; Forti, S.; Pagani, D.; Todini, L.; Torretta, S.; Ambrosetti, U.; Pignataro, L. Cochlear implantation in adolescents with prelinguistic deafness. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2010, 142, 804–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bosco, E.; Nicastri, M.; Ballantyne, D.; Viccaro, M.; Ruoppolo, G.; Maddalena, A.I.; Mancini, P. Long term results in late implanted adolescent and adult CI recipients. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2013, 270, 2611–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heywood, R.L.; Vickers, D.A.; Pinto, F.; Fereos, G.; Shaida, A. Assessment and outcome in non-traditional cochlear implant candidates. Audiol. Neurotol. 2017, 21, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lammers, M.J.W.; Versnel, H.; Topsakal, V.; Zanten, G.A.V.; Grolman, W. Predicting performance and non-use in prelingually deaf and late-implanted cochlear implant users. Otol. Neurotol. 2018, 39, e436–e442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Klop, W.M.C.; Briaire, J.J.; Stiggelbout, A.M.; Frijns, J.H.M. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness. Laryngoscope 2007, 117, 1982–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. O’Gara, S.J.; Cullington, H.E.; Grasmeder, M.L.; Adamou, M.; Matthews, E.S. factors affecting speech perception improvement post implantation in congenitally deaf adults. Ear Hear. 2016, 37, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Debruyne, J.; Janssen, M.; Brokx, J. Late cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults: A detailed analysis of auditory and self-perceived benefits. Audiol. Neurotol. 2018, 22, 364–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Duchesne, L.; Millette, I.; Bhérer, M.; Gobeil, S. Auditory performance and subjective benefits in adults with congenital or prelinguistic deafness who receive cochlear implants during adulthood. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2017, 18, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Debruyne, J.; Janssen, A.; Brokx, J. Systematic review on late cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults and adolescents: Clinical effectiveness. Ear Hear. 2020, 41, 1417–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Debruyne, J.; Janssen, A.; Brokx, J. Systematic review on late cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults and adolescents: Predictors of performance. Ear Hear. 2020, 41, 1431–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hermann, R.; Lescanne, E.; Loundon, N.; Barone, P.; Belmin, J.; Blanchet, C.; Borel, S.; Charpiot, A.; Coez, A.; Deguine, O.; et al. French society of ENT (SFORL) guidelines. Indications for cochlear implantation in adults. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2019, 136, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kalafat, M.; Hugonot-Diener, L.; Poitrenaud, J. Standardisation et étalonnage français du “Mini-Mental State”, version GRECO. Rev. Neuropsychol. 2003, 13, 209–236. [Google Scholar]
  22. Archbold, S.; Lutman, M.; Marshall, D. Categories of auditory performance. Ann. Otol Rhinol Laryngol. Suppl. 1995, 166, 312–314. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Cox, R.; Alexander, G. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995, 16, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Allen, C.; Nikolopoulos, T.; Dyar, D.; O’Donoghue, G. Reliability of a rating scale for measuring speech intelligibility after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol. Neurotol. 2001, 22, 631–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rousset, A.; Dowell, R.; Leigh, J. Receptive language as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome for prelingually deaf adults. Int. J. Audiol. 2016, 55, S24–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Caposecco, A.; Hickson, L.; Pedley, K. Cochlear implant outcomes in adults and adolescents with early-onset hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2012, 33, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Craddock, L.; Cooper, H.; Riley, A.; Wright, T. Cochlear implants for pre-lingually profoundly deaf adults. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2016, 17, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, W.S.; Moon, I.S.; Kim, H.N.; Lee, W.S.; Lee, S.E.; Choi, J.Y. Delayed cochlear implantation in adults with prelingual severe-to-profound hearing loss. Otol. Neurotol. 2011, 32, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Holden, L.K.; Au, D.; Finley, C.C.; Ph, D.; Firszt, J.B.; Timothy, A.; Brenner, C.; Potts, L.G.; Gotter, B.D.; Vanderhoof, S.S.; et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013, 34, 342–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Mosnier, I.; Ferrary, E.; Aubry, K.; Bordure, P.; Bozorg-Grayeli, A.; Deguine, O.; Eyermann, C.; Franco-Vidal, V.; Godey, B.; Guevara, N.; et al. The French national cochlear implant registry (EPIIC): Cochlear implantation in adults over 65 years old. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2020, 137, S19–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lazard, D.S.; Giraud, A.L.; Gnansia, D.; Meyer, B.; Sterkers, O. Understanding the deafened brain: Implications for cochlear implant rehabilitation. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2012, 129, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Debruyne, J.A.; Francart, T.; Janssen, A.M.L.; Douma, K.; Brokx, J.P.L. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance. Int. J. Audiol. 2017, 56, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Santarelli, R.; De Filippi, R.; Genovese, E.; Arslan, E. Cochlear implantation outcome in prelingually deafened young adults: A speech perception study. Audiol. Neurotol. 2008, 13, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cusumano, C.; Friedmann, D.R.; Fang, Y.; Wang, B.; Roland, J.T.; Waltzman, S.B. Performance plateau in prelingually and postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol. Neurotol. 2017, 38, 334–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Van Dijkhuizen, J.N.; Boermans, P.P.B.M.; Briaire, J.J.; Frijns, J.H.M. Intelligibility of the patient’s speech predicts the likelihood of cochlear implant success in prelingually deaf adults. Ear Hear. 2016, 37, e302–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lyness, C.R.; Woll, B.; Campbell, R.; Cardin, V. How does visual language affect crossmodal plasticity and cochlear implant success? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 2621–2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. De Seta, D.; Nguyen, Y.; Vanier, A.; Ferrary, E.; Bebear, J.P.; Godey, B.; Robier, A.; Mondain, M.; Deguine, O.; Sterkers, O.; et al. Five-year hearing outcomes in bilateral simultaneously cochlear-implanted adult patients. Audiol. Neurotol. 2016, 21, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient inclusion.
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient inclusion.
Jcm 11 01874 g001
Figure 2. Post-operative evolution after cochlear implantation. (A) Speech intelligibility without lipreading for disyllabic words in silence in the 2 groups. Compared to the preoperative scores, an improvement was observed for the good performer group at 3 months (p = 0.015), 6 months (p = 0.0002), 1 year (p < 0.0001), and 2 years (p = 0.0005) post-implantation. For the poor performer group, no significant improvement was found. n = 15, 11, 11, 15, 8 for the good performer group, and 19, 10, 10, 19, 11 for the poor performer group, respectively at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after cochlear implantation. (B) Evolution of speech intelligibility for disyllabic words over time in the 2 groups. (n) are the number of patients at each time point. (C) Speech intelligibility without lipreading for MBAA sentences in the 2 groups. Compared to the preoperative scores, an improvement was observed for the good performer group at 6 months (p = 0.024), 1 year (p = 0.0007), and 2 years (p = 0.011) post-implantation. For the poor performer group, no significant improvement was found. n = 12, 11, 10, 14, 7 for the good performer group, and 9, 7, 8, 13, 10 for the poor performer group, respectively at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after cochlear implantation. (D) Mean ± SEM of APHAB scores before, 1 and 2 years after implantation in the 2 groups, showing an improvement only for the good performer group (p < 0.0001). APHAB, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Data are mean ± SEM; a two-way ANOVA with a Tukey multiple comparisons test was performed for statistical analysis. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.0005, **** p < 0.0001, ns: non significant.
Figure 2. Post-operative evolution after cochlear implantation. (A) Speech intelligibility without lipreading for disyllabic words in silence in the 2 groups. Compared to the preoperative scores, an improvement was observed for the good performer group at 3 months (p = 0.015), 6 months (p = 0.0002), 1 year (p < 0.0001), and 2 years (p = 0.0005) post-implantation. For the poor performer group, no significant improvement was found. n = 15, 11, 11, 15, 8 for the good performer group, and 19, 10, 10, 19, 11 for the poor performer group, respectively at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after cochlear implantation. (B) Evolution of speech intelligibility for disyllabic words over time in the 2 groups. (n) are the number of patients at each time point. (C) Speech intelligibility without lipreading for MBAA sentences in the 2 groups. Compared to the preoperative scores, an improvement was observed for the good performer group at 6 months (p = 0.024), 1 year (p = 0.0007), and 2 years (p = 0.011) post-implantation. For the poor performer group, no significant improvement was found. n = 12, 11, 10, 14, 7 for the good performer group, and 9, 7, 8, 13, 10 for the poor performer group, respectively at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after cochlear implantation. (D) Mean ± SEM of APHAB scores before, 1 and 2 years after implantation in the 2 groups, showing an improvement only for the good performer group (p < 0.0001). APHAB, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Data are mean ± SEM; a two-way ANOVA with a Tukey multiple comparisons test was performed for statistical analysis. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.0005, **** p < 0.0001, ns: non significant.
Jcm 11 01874 g002
Figure 3. Preoperative assessments in the 2 groups. (A) Preoperative speech intelligibility for disyllabic words evaluated in optimal listening condition (i.e., with the 2 hearing aids if used) without and with lip-reading. Good performer group (GP) obtained better scores compared with to the poor performer group (PP) for the speech intelligibility without and with lip-reading (respectively p = 0.022, n = 15 for GP and 18 for PP, and p = 0.012, n = 13 for GP and 18 for PP, Mann–Whitney test). (B) Preoperative Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) scores. GP (n = 15) had better scores compared with PP (n = 16) (p = 0.003, chi-squared test, 3 missing values in PP). (C) Preoperative Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scores. GP (n = 14) had better scores compared with PP (n = 17) (p = 0.032, chi-squared test, 1 missing for GP and 2 for PP). Data are mean ± SEM (A) and n (B,C). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005.
Figure 3. Preoperative assessments in the 2 groups. (A) Preoperative speech intelligibility for disyllabic words evaluated in optimal listening condition (i.e., with the 2 hearing aids if used) without and with lip-reading. Good performer group (GP) obtained better scores compared with to the poor performer group (PP) for the speech intelligibility without and with lip-reading (respectively p = 0.022, n = 15 for GP and 18 for PP, and p = 0.012, n = 13 for GP and 18 for PP, Mann–Whitney test). (B) Preoperative Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) scores. GP (n = 15) had better scores compared with PP (n = 16) (p = 0.003, chi-squared test, 3 missing values in PP). (C) Preoperative Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scores. GP (n = 14) had better scores compared with PP (n = 17) (p = 0.032, chi-squared test, 1 missing for GP and 2 for PP). Data are mean ± SEM (A) and n (B,C). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005.
Jcm 11 01874 g003
Figure 4. Decision algorithm for cochlear implantation in the case of an adult patient with prelingual severe-to-profound hearing loss. HA: hearing aid; SIR: Speech Intelligibility Response; CAP: Communication Auditory Performance.
Figure 4. Decision algorithm for cochlear implantation in the case of an adult patient with prelingual severe-to-profound hearing loss. HA: hearing aid; SIR: Speech Intelligibility Response; CAP: Communication Auditory Performance.
Jcm 11 01874 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of implanted patients classified in function of speech intelligibility of disyllabic word score in quiet (WSI) with one cochlear implant 1 year after implantation (best or first implant outcomes are given for simultaneous or sequential bilateral implantation, respectively). Good and poor performers are patients 1 to 15 and 16 to 34, respectively.
Table 1. Characteristics of implanted patients classified in function of speech intelligibility of disyllabic word score in quiet (WSI) with one cochlear implant 1 year after implantation (best or first implant outcomes are given for simultaneous or sequential bilateral implantation, respectively). Good and poor performers are patients 1 to 15 and 16 to 34, respectively.
PatientSexHL EtiologyHL Class at dg ¥Age at dg (Months)Age at First HA (Months)Duration without HA (Years)Social CategoryCAPSIRCommunication Preoperative PTA (dB)Type of ImplantationAge at CI (Years)Year of First CICI ModelWSI at One Year (%)
CI EarNon-CI EarCI EarNon-CI Ear
1FUnknownS1212121755O115114Unilateral292019CI522100
2FUnknownP2424242775O102.599Bilateral seq.222010Ci51290
3MCnx 26P24242427NR5O120111Bilateral seq.262015CI24RE80
4FUnknownS2424242755O9998Unilateral392014CI24RE70
5FCnx 26P1212121665O9999Unilateral162013CI24RE70
6MCnx 26S1260605454O115104Unilateral522018CI52270
7FIUIP1330745O115102.5Bilateral seq.452013Ci52270
8FUnknownS2424242655O10999Bilateral seq.302012Med-El Flex3160
9MMeningitisS3961448154O105105Bilateral sim.472018Neuro ZTI Evo60
10FCnx 26P1616161765O10296Unilateral322012CI24RE50
11FGeneticS4040403754O + S109112Bilateral seq.272012CI42250
12FIUIP9995222O + S117111Bilateral sim.202007Med-El50
13MCnx 26S1516161754O111109Unilateral322018CI52250
14FUnknownP2424242755O10999Unilateral272018Ci52250
15MUnknownS 1818181.5735O97.595Unilateral202013Ci42250
16MUnknownS9991735O11199Unilateral312013Ci42240
17FCnx 26S6660755O116108Bilateral sim.392016Ci51240
18FCnx 26P4516745147NRNRO + S114115Unilateral452004Ci24CA30
19MUnknownP1818181654O9991Unilateral212012Ci24RE30
20FCnx 26P9991753O + S112108Bilateral seq.252012Ci24RE30
21MCnx 26P12121266NRNRO + S110106Unilateral332007Digisonic SP20
22MUnknownS3636363653O + S115116Unilateral322008CI24RE20
23FUnknownP3330742O + S110104Unilateral182011CI24RE20
24FCnx 26P1212121654O + S110105Bilateral seq.302015Ci42210
25MGeneticS3636363654O + S99115Unilateral212014Digisonic SP10
26FCnx 26P2424242734O + S110107Unilateral242016Ci42210
27MGeneticS4646464655O115110Bilateral seq.412010Ci24RE0
28MPrematureS2429292333O + C9994Unilateral332011Med-El Ti1000
29FGeneticP18717136644O109110Bilateral sim.432008Ci24RE0
30FIUIP46--30111C111100Bilateral sim.302013Digisonic SP0
31FUnknownP36363610411S120120Bilateral sim.232013Digisonic SP0
32FCnx 26S1212121754O110112Bilateral sim.412015Ci4220
33MGeneticP36NRNRNR432O + S116120Unilateral242019NeuroZTI Evo0
34FIUIP361203610423O112111Bilateral seq.552013Digisonic Evo0
HL: Hearing loss; Cnx: connexin; IUI: intra-uterine infection; dg: diagnosis; HA: hearing aid; CI: cochlear implant; CAP: Category of Auditory Performance; SIR: Speech Intelligibility Rating; PTA (dB): pure tone audiometry (decibel); Bilateral seq: sequential; Bilateral sim: simultaneous; WSI: speech intelligibility for disyllabic words in quiet; NR: not-reported. ¥: S is for severe and P for profound; : O is for oral, S for sign, C for code. The grey color is for good performers group.
Table 2. Auditory performance in quiet with cochlear implant alone (best or first implanted ear for bilateral simultaneous or sequential implantation, respectively) and communication performance before and 1 year post-implantation in the two groups.
Table 2. Auditory performance in quiet with cochlear implant alone (best or first implanted ear for bilateral simultaneous or sequential implantation, respectively) and communication performance before and 1 year post-implantation in the two groups.
Poor PerformersGood Performers
Preoperative1 Year Post-CIp-ValuePreoperative1 Year Post-CIp-Value
Speech intelligibility
Disyllabic words4 ± 1.9 (0–30),
n = 19
14 ± 3.4 (0–40),
n = 19
0.052 ¥11 ± 4.6 (0–50),
n = 15
65 ± 4.1 (50–100),
n = 15
<0.0001 ¥
Words in sentences2 ± 1.6 (0–14),
n = 9
30 ± 8.6 (0–77),
n = 12
0.13 ¥20 ± 8.9 (0–92),
n = 12
75 ± 6.7 (30–100),
n = 14
0.001 ¥
Sentences0 ± 0 (0–0),
n = 9
15 ± 6.2 (0–60),
n = 13
0.25 ¥13 ± 7 (0–80),
n = 12
64 ± 5.2 (33–100),
n = 14
0.0007 ¥
CAP
1200.015 000.0003
21110
34010
42610
58482
60323
70212
80103
90004
Good and poor performers had a speech intelligibility for disyllabic words in quiet ≥ and <50% at 1 year, respectively. CAP: Communication Auditory Performance; CI: cochlear implant. Data are given as mean ± SEM in % (range), and n for the intelligibility scores, and n for the CAP scores. ¥: two-way ANOVA; : chi-squared test.
Table 3. Evolution in good and poor performers groups before and 1 year after the second implantation in bilateral sequential implantation patients (n = 9). Good (n = 5) and poor (n = 4) performers had a speech intelligibility for disyllabic words in quiet ≥ and <50% at 1 year after the first implantation, respectively (see Table 1).
Table 3. Evolution in good and poor performers groups before and 1 year after the second implantation in bilateral sequential implantation patients (n = 9). Good (n = 5) and poor (n = 4) performers had a speech intelligibility for disyllabic words in quiet ≥ and <50% at 1 year after the first implantation, respectively (see Table 1).
Poor Performers (n = 4)Good Performers (n = 5)
Before the 2nd1 Year Post-2ndp-ValueBefore the 2nd1 Year Post-2ndp-Value
SI in quiet
Disyllabic words33 ± 16.5 (10–70),
n = 4
50 ± 13.5 (30–90),
n = 4
0.4 ¥82 ± 11.1 (50–100),
n = 5
88 ± 6.3 (70–100),
n = 4
0.9 ¥
Words in sentences48 ± 21.2 (0–94),
n = 4
66 ± 13.0 (44–89),
n = 3
0.9 ¥83 ± 9.3 (51–100),
n = 5
89 ± 10.5 (68–100),
n = 3
0.7 ¥
Sentences33 ± 17.7 (0–80),
n = 4
49 ± 17.4 (20–80),
n = 3
0.8 ¥69 ± 13.6 (33–100),
n = 5
80 ± 16.6 (47–100),
n = 3
0.5 ¥
SI in noise
Words in sentences25 ± 18.4 (0–78),
n = 4
38 ± 14.4 (11–60),
n = 3
0.9 ¥55 ± 18.6 (3–91),
n = 5
78 ± 11.7 (56–100),
n = 4
0.1 ¥
Sentences15 ± 15.0 (0–60),
n = 4
20 ± 7.5 (7–33),
n = 3
0.9 ¥41 ± 17.4 (0–80),
n = 5
62 ± 20.1 (27–100),
n = 4
0.07 ¥
APHAB45 ± 4.8 (33–57),
n = 4
45 ± 4.7 (37–57),
n = 4
>0.9 48 ± 7.1 (33–67),
n = 5
39 ± 8.6 (15–57),
n = 4
0.6
CAP
5110.8 100.09
60010
70110
82112
91112
SI: Speech intelligibility; CAP: Communication Auditory Performance. Data are mean ± SEM (range) in % for the intelligibility scores and the APHAB score, and n for the CAP score. ¥: two-way ANOVA; : chi-squared test; : Wilcoxon test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lahlou, G.; Daoudi, H.; Ferrary, E.; Jia, H.; De Bergh, M.; Nguyen, Y.; Sterkers, O.; Mosnier, I. Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071874

AMA Style

Lahlou G, Daoudi H, Ferrary E, Jia H, De Bergh M, Nguyen Y, Sterkers O, Mosnier I. Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(7):1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071874

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lahlou, Ghizlene, Hannah Daoudi, Evelyne Ferrary, Huan Jia, Marion De Bergh, Yann Nguyen, Olivier Sterkers, and Isabelle Mosnier. 2022. "Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation in Prelingual Profoundly Deaf Adult Patients" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 7: 1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071874

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop