Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:54:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Listen-Up writes: The ENT said the longer we wait, the better she is likely to do with the implant. Cheryl, I'm just wondering if you may have misqouted the ENT. It seems that he would say the opposite. I always thought they wanted to implant as early as possible, not wait. What is his reasoning. My son was implanted at 20 months and we really struggled over the decision because it seemed he got some benefit from the aids. We could only judge that benefit from his responses on a daily basis because at such a young age it was very difficult to figure things out in the booth. I know on paper all the professionals were convinced of the need to implant. He had a profound loss. I suspected he had more residual hearing than they originally thought, but as I said, I think it's hard to tell when they're so young. was definately a borderline candidate. I'd have to look at his audiogram to see the actual dB loss but I think he was considered severe/profound with some benefit from his aids. At 20 months he had a lot of receptive language but no expressive. Just a lot of babble. 's mom, 3.5 yrs, CI 7/30/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 <<I'm just wondering if you may have misqouted the ENT. It seems that he would say the opposite. I always thought they wanted to implant as early as possible, not wait.>> I think that this depends quite a bit on the child's age and the amount of residual hearing they've had up until the CI is considered. Studies I've seen conclude that early implantation for a child who is profoundly deaf at birth (or at least pre-lingually) is desirable because what they hear with the CI is, and will be, their only experience of sound. However, kids who are older and who have the experience of language through residual hearing are often " ahead of the game " and need only learn to correlate what they receive with the CI with what they already know of sound and speech. Carol - mom to , 7.11, mod to profound, LVAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 This is obviously not a cut and dry situation. If you have a baby with over a 90db loss then the implant is the way to go, and if one ear is worse than the other ear then implant the worse ear and you can still try the HA on the un-implanted ear. It is when the loss is in the severe range when it gets more complicated. Then they like you to try the HA's first. You can have 10 kids with a 80db loss and they will all get different benefit so you have to try the HA's. I think when they say to implant early they mean the kids with a profound loss. If you do get benefit from a HA then you are stimulating the nerve and brain so to get a implant for that child at a later age would still be beneficial because they were receiving input all along. It is older deaf kids who choose to get a implant at a older age who do not benefit because they had gone so many years without stimulation. - - What was your sons db loss when he was implanted? If it was profound then that makes sense to get the implant. Even though you will get some response with the hearing aid, most likely you will not get the response at all frequencies. My daughter has a CI and a HA and she does well with both but the CI is much more consistent across frequencies so she is hearing better with that across the board. If I just put in her HA you wouldn't know the difference right away because they adapt to the levels they can hear but over time you would notice a difference and once the CI is back on she then gets more complete input. Don't waste time second guessing you choice... you made the right choice. Does wear a HA on the un-implanted ear? It is such a complicated individual choice but as a parent I believe you will know when they aren't getting enough and need the implant. Karolyn Welch (Mom to Alison 4 / CI & HA and 7 and 9) ====================== To: Listen-Up From: srkearns@... Subject: Re: CI vs hearing aid > In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:54:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Listen-Up writes: > The ENT > said the longer we wait, the better she is likely to do with the > implant. > > Cheryl, > I'm just wondering if you may have misqouted the ENT. It seems that he would > say the opposite. I always thought they wanted to implant as early as > possible, not wait. What is his reasoning. > My son was implanted at 20 months and we really struggled over the decision > because it seemed he got some benefit from the aids. We could only judge that > benefit from his responses on a daily basis because at such a young age it was > very difficult to figure things out in the booth. I know on paper all the > professionals were convinced of the need to implant. He had a profound loss. I > suspected he had more residual hearing than they originally thought, but as I > said, I think it's hard to tell when they're so young. > was definately a borderline candidate. I'd have to look at his > audiogram to see the actual dB loss but I think he was considered > severe/profound with > some benefit from his aids. At 20 months he had a lot of receptive language > but no expressive. Just a lot of babble. > > > 's mom, 3.5 yrs, CI 7/30/02 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 When they say implant early they don't necessarily mean those with a profound loss they mean those who get little bennifit from hearing aids. If you have tried hearing aids and they aren't working well anymore then you consider the implant whether it is severe or profound. By early they mean usually before the age of 5, but they usually want to do it as soon as possable. After the age of 5 it's not to say someone wouldn't bennefit as I think said if your child has good language skills before loosing the majority of their hearing they would usually do really well with an implant regardless of age. Of course if your child looses the majority of hearing wheather they were very lingual before or not and you wait years before implanting it most likely will be a little more difficult for them to pick it up again after. If they are able to read lips that can probably help in learning the new sounds but that is just my guess. Re: CI vs hearing aid > In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:54:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Listen-Up writes: > The ENT > said the longer we wait, the better she is likely to do with the > implant. > > Cheryl, > I'm just wondering if you may have misqouted the ENT. It seems that he would > say the opposite. I always thought they wanted to implant as early as > possible, not wait. What is his reasoning. > My son was implanted at 20 months and we really struggled over the decision > because it seemed he got some benefit from the aids. We could only judge that > benefit from his responses on a daily basis because at such a young age it was > very difficult to figure things out in the booth. I know on paper all the > professionals were convinced of the need to implant. He had a profound loss. I > suspected he had more residual hearing than they originally thought, but as I > said, I think it's hard to tell when they're so young. > was definately a borderline candidate. I'd have to look at his > audiogram to see the actual dB loss but I think he was considered > severe/profound with > some benefit from his aids. At 20 months he had a lot of receptive language > but no expressive. Just a lot of babble. > > > 's mom, 3.5 yrs, CI 7/30/02 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.