Venkataramani Nithya, Anbuchezhian R, Maheswari S Sudha, Arumugam Senthil Vadivu, Raghu Nandhan S, Kameswaran Mohan
Madras ENT Research Foundation (P) Ltd Chennai, Chennai, India.
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Mar;73(1):41-44. doi: 10.1007/s12070-020-01959-x. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
Outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) are generically assessed using standard validated measures like CAP, SIR, MAIS and MUSS scales. Although this reflects the improvement in auditory verbal skills among the implantees with habilitation over one year, the overall perception of their skill development may vary between the parents of these children and the clinicians who provide the habilitation. This study aimed to compare the CAP and SIR scores sequentially over habilitation and further analyzes the correlation between clinician assessment (with CAP/SIR scores) and parental perspective (with MAIS/MUSS scores), at the end of one year of habilitation. 388 children aged 1-6 years who underwent unilateral CI were included in the study. Their baseline CAP and SIR scores were recorded post implantation. All children received 1 year of intensive auditory verbal therapy and their 12 month CAP, SIR, MAIS and MUSS scores were then recorded. The baseline CAP/SIR scores were compared with 12 month CAP/SIR scores and then their 12 month CAP/SIR scores were correlated with 12 month MAIS/MUSS scores respectively. There was significant difference between baseline and the 12 month CAP/SIR scores ( < 0.001). There was strong positive correlation between CAP and SIR scores after 12 months of habilitation (r = 0.7), while there was moderate positive correlation between CAP and MAIS scores (r = 0.59) and between SIR and MUSS scores (r = 0.49) respectively. Though the parents note significant improvement in child's communication abilities, the parental perspective of final outcomes does not always match with the clinician's assessments at the end of habilitation, as highlighted by the moderate correlations. A more precise method of holistic assessment is lacking currently and stands warranted.
人工耳蜗植入(CI)的效果一般使用如CAP、SIR、MAIS和MUSS量表等标准的经过验证的测量方法进行评估。虽然这反映了接受康复训练一年以上的植入者在听觉语言技能方面的改善,但这些孩子的父母和提供康复训练的临床医生对其技能发展的总体认知可能存在差异。本研究旨在比较康复训练过程中CAP和SIR评分的变化,并在康复训练一年结束时进一步分析临床医生评估(通过CAP/SIR评分)与家长观点(通过MAIS/MUSS评分)之间的相关性。388名年龄在1至6岁之间接受单侧人工耳蜗植入的儿童被纳入研究。记录他们植入后的基线CAP和SIR评分。所有儿童均接受了1年的强化听觉语言治疗,然后记录他们12个月时的CAP、SIR、MAIS和MUSS评分。将基线CAP/SIR评分与12个月时的CAP/SIR评分进行比较,然后将他们12个月时的CAP/SIR评分分别与12个月时的MAIS/MUSS评分进行相关性分析。基线和12个月时的CAP/SIR评分之间存在显著差异(<0.001)。康复训练12个月后,CAP和SIR评分之间存在强正相关(r = 0.7),而CAP与MAIS评分之间(r = 0.59)以及SIR与MUSS评分之间(r = 0.49)分别存在中度正相关。尽管家长们注意到孩子的沟通能力有显著改善,但正如中度相关性所强调的那样,在康复训练结束时,家长对最终结果的看法并不总是与临床医生的评估一致。目前缺乏一种更精确的整体评估方法,这是有必要的。