ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN CHILDREN WITH BILATERAL SEVERE HEARING IMPAIRMENT AFTER COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION

Aslanov P. R.

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE

Scentific article

Goal. Assessment of quality of life in children with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss of III-IV degree after unilateral cochlear implantation. Methods. The survey was conducted among patients who CI more than 6 months, most of them with bilateral perceptive (sensorineural) hearing loss of III-IV degree due to congenital malformation of the inner ear. This required an adapted translation of the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Glasgow Children Benefit Inventory (GCBI) questionnaires in Azerbaijani. For this, GBI and GCBI performed the procedure of «forward-reverse translation». Results. 87 patients aged from 1 to 12 years (average age (2,4 ± 1,2) years) with the diagnosis “bilateral chronic sensorineural hearing loss of IV degree, borderline with deafness, condition after unilateral cochlear implantation” were examined. Women accounted for 58.6% (51 people), men – 41.4% (36 people) of the total number of selected patients. The duration of the period of deafness on average was (5.2 ± 1.7) years (from 6 months. up to 10 years). The study was carried out in three stages: during the activation of the speech processor CI, 3 and 9 months after that. All patients underwent: standard tuning of the cochlear implant speech processor, tonal threshold audiometry in NWP and speech audiometry using verbal articulation tables. It was found that the level of quality of life of patients in the study groups for all tested scales was above average (50% or more), while the majority of scales was below the control values. There were statistically significant differences between the indicators of patients of group I and subgroup II A (adult children who were able to independently assess the quality of life) in relation to the scales “emotional state” (p < 0.01) and “General health” (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were recorded when comparing the indicators of scales between group I (adult patients) and the control group with respect to the scales “physical functioning” (p < 0.05) and “social functioning” (p < 0.01). Comparison of indicators of subgroup II A (children able to independently assess the quality of life) and the control group revealed statistically significant differences, as in the first group with respect to the scales “physical functioning” (p < 0.01) and «emotional state» (p < 0.05). When comparing the results of the questionnaire in dynamics in group I in two related samples, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were revealed in the calculation of indicators of six of the eight scales of the questionnaire: the scales «physical functioning», «role physical functioning», «role emotional functioning», «emotional state», «social functioning», as well as the scales of pain. When comparing the indicators obtained in the survey of parents (guardians) of patients of subgroup II B, a correlation between the indicators of questionnaires “cochlear implant functioning Index” and “auditory integration Scale” on the scales “speech perception in the background noise” (p = 0.02) and “communication at school)” (p = 0.001) was revealed. Conclusion. Evaluation of the survey results using GBI and GCBI showed that cochlear implantation has a beneficial effect on the quality of life of patients.

quality of life, questionnaires, implantation, hearing loss.

1. Dajhes NA. Rukovodstvo po audiologii i sluhoprotezirovaniju. Pod obshh. red. Pjatkovskogo JaB. M.: Medicinskoe informacionnoe agentstvo; 2009. 240 s. [in Russiаn].
2. Koroleva IV. Kohlearnaja implantacija gluhih detej i vzroslyh. SPb.: Karo; 2009. 752 s. [in Russiаn].
3. Staroha AV, Davydov AV. Kohlearnaja implantacija – perspektivnoe napravlenie sluhoprotezirovanija. Bjull. Sib. med. 2004;4:34-8. [in Russiаn].
4. Tavartkiladze GA. Rukovodstvo po klinicheskoj audiologii. M.: Medicina; 2013. [in Russiаn].
5. Hager A. Cochlear implantation in fractured inner ears. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;4(40):281-7.
6. World Health Organization. The First Ten Years of the World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1958.
7. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning G. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Annals of Otology, R Rhinology and Laryngology. 1996;105(6):415-22. DOI: 10.1177/000348949610500601
8. Kubba H, Swan IR, Gatehouse S. The Glasgow Children’s Benefit Inventory: a new instrument for assessing health-related benefit after an intervention. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 2004;113(12):980-6. DOI: 10.1177/000348940411301208
9. Peasgood A, Brookes N, Graham J. Performance and benefit as outcome measures following cochlear implantation in nontraditional adult candidates: a pilot study. Cochlear Implants International. 2003;4(4):171-90. DOI: 10.1179/cim.2003.4.4.171
10. Dutt S, McDermott AL, Jelbert A, Reid A, Proofs D. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the boneanchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. Journal of Laryngology. and Otology. 2002;116(S28):7-14. DOI: 10.1258/0022215021911284
11. De Wolf M, Hole M, Mylanus E, Snick A, Cremers C. Benefit and quality of life after bone anchored hearing aid fitting in children with unilateral or bilateral hearing impairment. Archives of Otolaringology, Head and Neck Surgery. 2011;137(2):130-8. DOI: 10.1001/archoto.2010.252

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 4 Part 1 (153), 2019 year, 69-72 pages, index UDK 616.283.1-089.168.1:614.2

10.29254/2077-4214-2019-4-1-153-69-72