Prognosis tool based on a modified children's implant profile for use in pediatric cochlear implant candidacy evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: We developed a prediction tool to assist in evaluation of pediatric candidates for cochlear implantation (CI) and to help plan for preoperative and postoperative support. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2005, 277 patients underwent CI at Children's Hospital Boston. Of these 277 patients, 250 had at least 2 years of post-CI follow-up and adequate pre-CI information for rating by our prediction tool. Of the 250, 106 were randomly selected for inclusion. The patients were divided into group A (auditory/oral communicator); group B (auditory/oral communicator with visual assistance), group C (visual/manual communicator with auditory/oral skills assistance), and group D (will not derive communicative benefit from implant). Predictions were performed with clinical assessment and two statistical techniques: regression modeling and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. RESULTS: Among patients who became auditory/oral communicators (group A), clinical assessment predicted that outcome accurately 65% of the time, CART analysis had intermediate sensitivity (79%), and regression modeling was the most sensitive (95%). Groups B through D were predicted 45% of the time by regression modeling, 90% of the time by clinical assessment, and 100% of the time by CART analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of speech-language, medical, and educational constructs can provide a reliable prediction of the communication outcome. Our goal for the prognosis tool is to make it part of the overall candidacy process in supporting decision-making about CI and planning for post-CI therapy.

Not a "sound" decision: is cochlear implantation always the best choice?

OBJECTIVE: To review the candidacy criteria used to counsel parents of profoundly deaf children, to determine if these criteria have changed over time, and to evaluate eventual communication outcomes for these patients. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 483 pediatric cochlear implant candidates from September 1995 to December 2006 seen at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. RESULTS: Out of 483 implant candidates, 191 patients were initially felt not to be favorable candidates based on CI team evaluation. Of this group, 3 had insufficient records to review and were excluded. The remaining 188 patients underwent a detailed analysis of specific possible contraindications to implantation. This included audiologic, medical and psychosocial parameters. The data was divided into two time periods: Group 1 included 44 patients from 1995 to 2000, and Group 2 included 144 patients from 2001 to 2006. In Group 1, there was a higher percentage of children with language deprivation and developmental concerns and patients not ready, compared to Group 2 which had a higher percentage of families not ready and inadequate support systems. Group 1 had a higher percentage of patients who ultimately underwent cochlear implant, but otherwise the two groups were largely similar. CONCLUSION: Analysis of our data showed that the degree of concern that the cochlear implant team has in relationship to specific candidacy criteria has changed over time. Recommendations against a cochlear implant were often revisited after initial concerns were addressed. The use of a team approach, in conjunction with a validation tool, is important for establishing criteria for successful cochlear implantation in children to support appropriate counseling of patients and families and to plan post-implant management.