Jiri SKRİVAN, Michal JUROVCİK, Zdenka AKSENOVA, Jaromír ASTL, Radka Kremlikova POUROVA, Petra DYTRCH, Tomáš SİEGER

Speech Perception and Production in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Pendred Syndrome

Aims: Patients with the Pendred syndrome suffer very often from a hearing loss. They may be good candidates for a cochlear implantation, but unfortunately, due to the fluctuating character of the hearing loss, they may escape such indication. In the study, we compared speech production and speech acquisition in 2 groups of implanted patients: those with the Pendred syndrome, and standard non-syndromic patients. Methods: Ten patients with Pendred syndrome were analyzed for speech perception and production. The control group consisted of 41 non-syndromic implanted patients. All implantees were scored according to speech perception, speech production, and the sum of both. The data were statistically analyzed. Results: No statistical difference was found in language acquisition and production in implantees with Pendred syndrome when compared to non-syndromic patients with cochlear implants. Nor there was any difference in speech production and acquisition between the 2 compared groups regarding surgical age, time elapsed after surgery, or age during the testing. Conclusion: In this study evaluating language and speech production and acquisition, patients with Pendred syndrome who underwent cochlear implants show comparable results to their implanted peers with deafness of a different etiology.

PDF

___

1. Sennaroglu L, Saatci I. A new classification for cochleovestibular malformations. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(12):2230-2241 . [CrossRef]
2. Smith RJH. Pendred syndrome/nonsyndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct. In: Adam MP et al., eds. GeneReviews®. Seattle (WA): University of Washington; 1993.
3. Everett LA, Glaser B, Beck JC, et al. Pendred syndrome is caused by mutations in a putative sulphate transporter gene (PDS). Nat Genet. 1997;17(4):411-422. [CrossRef]
4. Scott DA, Wang R, Kreman TM, et al. Functional differences of the PDS gene product are associated with phenotypic variation in patients with Pendred syndrome and non-syndromic hearing loss (DFNB4). Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9(11):1709-1715. [CrossRef]
5. Li XC, Everett LA, Lalwani AK, et al. A mutation in PDS causes non-syndromic recessive deafness. Nat Genet. 1998;18(3):215-217. [CrossRef]
6. Yang T, Gurrola JG, Wu H, et al. Mutations of KCNJ10 together with mutations of SLC26A4 cause digenic nonsyndromic hearing loss associated with enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;84(5):651-657. [CrossRef]
7. Yang T, Vidarsson H, Rodrigo-Blomqvist S, et al. Transcriptional control of SLC26A4 is involved in Pendred syndrome and nonsyndromic enlargement of vestibular aqueduct (DFNB4). Am J Hum Genet. 2007;80(6):1055-1063. [CrossRef]
8. Pourová R, Janousek P, Jurovcík M, et al. Spectrum and frequency of SLC26A4 mutations among Czech patients with early hearing loss with and without enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA). Ann Hum Genet. 2010;74(ych4):299-307. [CrossRef]
9. Katra R, Pourova RK, Dytrych P, et al. Pendredův syndrome v České republice - Pendred syndrome in the Czech Republic. Otorinolaringol Foniatrie, 2011;60(2):103- 111.
10. Astl J, Stolbova D, Skrivan J, Holcat M. Struma spojená s nedoslýchavostí - Goitre associated with deafness. Otorinolaringol Foniatrie. 1996;45(1):31-34.
11. Buchman CA, Copeland BJ, Yu KK, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with congenital inner ear malformations. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(2):309-316. [CrossRef]
12. Sennaroglu L, Sarac S, Ergin T. Surgical results of cochlear implantation in malformed cochlea. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27(5):615-623. [CrossRef]
13. Pritchett C, Zwolan T, Huq F, et al. Variations in the cochlear implant experience in children with enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Laryngoscope. 2015;125(9):2169-2174. [CrossRef]
14. Mey K, Bille M, Cayé-Thomasen P. Cochlear implantation in Pendred syndrome and non-syndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct - clinical challenges, surgical results, and complications. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136(10):1064-1068. [CrossRef]
15. Catli T, Uckan B, Olgun L. Speech and Language development after cochlear implantation in children with bony labyrinth malformations: long-term results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(11):3131-3136. [CrossRef]
16. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. Available at: https ://ww w.wma .net/ polic ies-p ost/w ma-de clara tion- of-he lsink i-eth ical- princ iples -for- medic al-re searc h-inv olvin g-hum an-su bject s/. [CrossRef]
17. Mey K, Bille M, Rye Rasmussen SH, Tranebjærg L, Cayé-Thomasen P. The Natural History of Hearing Loss in Pendred Syndrome and Non-Syndromic Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):e178-e185. [CrossRef]
18. van Nierop JWI, Huinck WJ, Pennings RJE, et al. Patients with Pendred syndrome: is cochlear implantation beneficial? Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(4):386-394. [CrossRef]
19. Kontorinis G, Lenarz T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Neuburger J. Cochlear implantation in Pendred syndrome. Cochlear Implants Int. 2011;12(3):157-163. [CrossRef]
20. Mey K, Percy-Smith L, Hallstrøm M, Sandvej M, Cayé-Thomasen P. Receptive language acquisition in a pediatric population with Pendred syndrome and non-syndromic enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020;140(1):46-50. [CrossRef]