Bilateral Cochlear Implantation
With the help of CICS we surveyed a group of 16 parents whose children had received bilateral implants in the UK. This project was funded by RNID.
The group was split evenly between those who had been given two implants at the same time and those who had a second operation later The average age at 1st switch on 36 months and the average age at 2nd switch on was 128 months.
Funding for a Second Implant:
We asked:
How difficult was it to get funding?
4 had ‘Great difficulty’ (3 children were post-meningitic)
4 had ‘Moderate difficulty’ (2 children were post-meningitic)
2 had ‘Little difficulty’ (1 child was post-meningitic)
6 said they had no difficulty (4 were post-meningitic, one had visual impairment)
Who funded the implant?
Acquired – meningitis 5 were funded by PCT
4 were funded by Private-personal income
1 was funded by medical insurance
Acquired-other 1 was funded by PCT
Congenital 3 were funded by PCT
1 was funded by a non-UK Health Service
1 was funded by medical insurance
What was the reason for the second Implant/who made the decision ?
2 respondents said it was their child’s choice
4 said it was a join decision between parent and child.
9 Parents made the choice themselves – in all cases their children had been deafened by meningitis.
In one case the second implant was provided due to device failure in the opposite ear
Of the parents who were involved in making the decision 3 said that it was very or moderately difficult to make the decision, all others said it was not difficult.
Benefits of Bilateral Implants:
All parents who felt able to comment (13) expressed the view that their child was able to hear in noisy surroundings. One parent reported that her child could hear in noise but also made use of lip reading cues 9 parents felt that their child could identify where sound was coming from.
Parents of those children who were implanted sequentially were also asked if there was a difference in their child’s ability to localise sound with two implants as compared to one. Two parents reported a difference with one parent making no response and two who felt it was too early to tell.
5 parents of children who received their second implant later commented on the general ‘ease of listening’ that two implants provided.
Interestingly some parents of the simultaneously implanted children commented that they noticed a difference if their child was only accessing sound through one implant:
Some parents discussed the benefits they saw in term of their child’s speech and language development:
Three parents commented on the improved ‘surround sound’ their child obtained:
Other parents commented on the advantages of having a ‘back up’ system