The landscape of auditory rehabilitation has witnessed a paradigm shift with the advent of cochlear implant (CI) technology, offering renewed hope for children grappling with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The remarkable capacity of CIs to bypass compromised auditory structures and directly stimulate the auditory nerve has redefined the possibilities of auditory perception and speech comprehension.[1] However, the decision to pursue cochlear implantation in pediatric candidates is far from straightforward; it necessitates a profound understanding of the multidimensional factors that collectively shape the child's candidacy. This review article delves comprehensively into the intricate tapestry of considerations underlying the evaluation of cochlear implant candidacy in children, advocating for an all-encompassing, multidisciplinary approach [2].

Audiological Considerations

Central to the determination of cochlear implant candidacy in children is the meticulous evaluation of auditory functioning. The foundation of this evaluation rests upon established audiometric assessments, including pure-tone audiometry and speech perception tests [3]. These tests provide vital insights into the degree of hearing loss and potential for auditory restoration through cochlear implantation. Moreover, they aid in setting realistic expectations for post-implantation outcomes [4]. However, to present a comprehensive view of the child's auditory status, objective measures like auditory brainstem response (ABR) and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) assume paramount importance. ABR elucidates the integrity of the auditory pathway, while OAEs offer insights into cochlear function. Interpretation of audiological data necessitates a careful consideration of the child's age, developmental stage, cognitive abilities and willingness to adapt to amplified sound [5].

Medical Dimensions

Beyond the audiological sphere, a meticulous medical evaluation forms an indispensable component of the cochlear implant candidacy assessment. The etiology of the child's hearing loss, the anatomical condition of the cochlea and overall health status collectively contribute to determining the feasibility of cochlear implantation [6]. Anatomical considerations hold particular significance, as cochlear morphology influences electrode insertion and subsequent neural responses. Moreover, the presence of additional medical conditions demands cautious evaluation to ensure the child's well-being during and after the implantation procedure. Collaborative interaction with medical experts is crucial to anticipate potential complications, optimize surgical planning and ensure post-implantation safety [7].

Psychosocial Landscape

The journey towards cochlear implantation is not solely defined by physiological parameters; it intersects profoundly with the psychosocial domain. Psychological assessments play a pivotal role in evaluating the child's emotional well-being and the family's readiness for the implantation process. Understanding the psychological preparedness of both child and family is imperative for navigating the challenges that arise throughout the rehabilitation journey [8]. The emotional rollercoaster that families often undergo underscores the significance of tailored counseling and provision of support resources. Cultural and linguistic factors further contribute to the psychosocial landscape, necessitating a sensitive approach that respects the family's unique identity and preferences [9].

Educational Alignment

The integration of audiological and psychosocial dimensions extends to the educational context, where the child's age at implantation and the learning environment are pivotal determinants of success. Collaborative efforts between audiologists and educators facilitate the seamless alignment of auditory goals with educational milestones [10]. This alignment ensures that the child's auditory development harmoniously dovetails with their broader educational trajectory. Communication mode selection, be it auditory-verbal, auditory-oral or sign language, is a nuanced decision that should consider the child's linguistic and cognitive capabilities, family preferences and cultural background.

Interdisciplinary Synergy

The evaluation of cochlear implant candidacy transcends the confines of any single discipline; it necessitates a harmonious synergy of audiological, medical, psychological and educational insights. The integration of these multifaceted perspectives affords a holistic understanding of the child's potential for successful cochlear implantation [11]. The multidisciplinary approach emphasizes a collective engagement, involving audiologists, medical specialists, psychologists and educators. Regular case conferences serve as a crucible for knowledge exchange, enabling informed decision-making that places the child's best interests at the forefront [12].

Research Prospects

As technology advances and our understanding of pediatric cochlear implantation deepens, the pursuit of research remains paramount. Longitudinal studies tracking the trajectories of implanted children across audiological, medical, psychological and educational dimensions offer a dynamic understanding of CI outcomes. Such research not only refines candidacy criteria but also informs the optimization of intervention strategies for enhancing long-term auditory, linguistic and psychosocial development [13].

In summation, the evaluation of cochlear implant candidacy in children is an intricate tapestry woven from audiological, medical, psychological and educational threads. This multidisciplinary approach underscores the need to holistically evaluate the child's potential to thrive with a CI, acknowledging the inherent interplay between their physiological, emotional, cognitive and linguistic facets. As professionals, caregivers and families unite in a collaborative journey, the barriers imposed by hearing loss can be transcended, ultimately enabling every child to engage harmoniously with the symphony of sound that defines the human experience.

In the realm of auditory rehabilitation, cochlear implants (CIs) have emerged as a revolutionary technology, providing children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss the opportunity to access sound and speech [14]. This comprehensive review delved into the intricate web of multidisciplinary considerations that underpin the evaluation of cochlear implant candidacy in pediatric patients. The synthesis of various dimensions such as audiological, medical, psychological and educational factors has illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process while highlighting the critical need for a collaborative approach among professionals.

The amalgamation of audiological assessments forms the cornerstone of CI candidacy evaluation. Pure-tone audiometry, speech perception testing and aided audiograms collectively serve as fundamental tools for assessing the degree of hearing loss and potential benefit from a CI [15]. Importantly, objective measures such as auditory brainstem response (ABR) and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) aid in the assessment of auditory nerve function and cochlear integrity [16]. However, these audiological metrics must be interpreted in the context of the child's developmental stage, age and cognitive abilities.

Complementary to audiological evaluations, a thorough medical assessment is imperative. Factors such as etiology of hearing loss, anatomical considerations of the cochlea and overall health status influence the potential for successful CI outcomes [17]. Close collaboration with medical specialists ensures that anatomical anomalies or medical conditions are addressed, enhancing surgical feasibility and optimizing post-implantation outcomes.

The psychosocial dimension emerged as an equally significant facet in the evaluation process. Psychological assessments encompassing the child's and family's expectations, emotional well-being and coping strategies provide insights into the broader psychosocial landscape. Recognizing the emotional journey that families undertake, offering appropriate counseling and support resources becomes pivotal [18]. Moreover, an understanding of the family's cultural background and linguistic preferences facilitates tailored rehabilitation strategies, thus enhancing the child's overall experience. Educational considerations intertwine seamlessly with audiological and psychosocial aspects. A child's age at implantation, educational environment and individual learning style shape the trajectory of auditory skill development and language acquisition. Collaboration between audiologists and educators ensures the alignment of auditory goals with educational milestones, thereby fostering an integrated approach to language learning. Interdisciplinary collaboration emerges as the linchpin of effective CI candidacy evaluation [19]. The convergence of insights from audiology, medicine, psychology and education paints a comprehensive picture of the child's potential to thrive with a CI. Regular case conferences involving specialists allow for a holistic analysis of the child's profile, leading to informed decision-making that considers the child's best interests [20].

This review underscores the intricate interplay of various dimensions in the assessment of cochlear implant candidacy in children with profound hearing loss. The convergence of audiological, medical, psychological and educational considerations forms the bedrock of a well-rounded evaluation process. The essence of this multidisciplinary approach lies not only in the technical assessment but also in the recognition of the child and family as active participants in their auditory journey. By embracing a collaborative ethos, professionals can collectively navigate the complexities, uncertainties and opportunities presented by cochlear implantation. It is imperative to acknowledge that each child is a unique entity and the decision to pursue cochlear implantation should be underpinned by a profound respect for diversity and a commitment to maximizing the potential for a rich auditory and linguistic life.

As technology advances and our understanding of pediatric cochlear implantation deepens, continued research remains paramount. Longitudinal studies tracking the progress of implanted children across these multidisciplinary domains will provide invaluable insights into refining candidacy criteria and optimizing intervention strategies. With unwavering dedication to the holistic well-being of the child, researchers, clinicians, educators and families collectively pave the way for a future where every child can perceive and engage with the symphony of sound, transcending the confines of hearing loss.

1. Warner-Czyz, Andrea D. et al. “American cochlear implant alliance task force guidelines for determining cochlear implant candidacy in children.” Ear and hearing. vol. 43, no. 2. March 2022. pp. 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/ AUD.0000000000001087.

2. Coco, Laura et al. “Feasibility of community health workers as teleaudiology patient-site facilitators: a multilevel training study.” International Journal of Audiology. vol. 60, no. 9. 2021. pp. 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14992027.2020.1864487.

3. Park, Lisa R. et al. “American cochlear implant alliance task force guidelines for clinical assessment and management of cochlear implantation in children with single-sided deafness.” Ear and Hearing. vol. 43, no. 2. March 2022. pp. 255–267. https:// doi. org/ 10.1097/AUD.000000000000 1204.

4. De Kleijn, Jasper L. et al. “Identification of pure-tone audiologic thresholds for pediatric cochlear implant candidacy a systematic review.” JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. vol. 144, no. 7. July 2018. pp. 630–638. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0652.

5. Wiseman, Kathryn B et al. “Hearing thresholds, speech recognition and audibility as indicators for modifying intervention in children with hearing aids.” Ear and hearing. vol. 44, no. 4. July 2023. pp. 787–802. https://doi. org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001328.

6. Carlson, Matthew L. et al. “Survey of the American neurotology society on cochlear implantation: part 1, candidacy assessment and expanding indications.” Otology and Neurotology. vol. 39, no. 1. January 2018. pp. e12–e19. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001632.

7. Killan, Catherine F. et al. “A scoping review of studies comparing outcomes for children with severe hearing loss using hearing aids to children with cochlear implants.” Ear and Hearing. vol. 43, no. 2. March 2022. pp. 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001104.

8. Noij, Kimberley S et al. “Trends in timing and provision of pediatric cochlear implant care during COVID-19.” OTO open. vol. 7, no. 1. January 2023. p. e37. https://doi.org/10. 1002/oto2.37.

9. Ontario Health (Quality). “Implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss: A health technology assessment.” Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. vol. 20, no. 1. March 2020. pp. 1–165.

10. Hagen, Rudolf et al. “The online hearing counselling 1.0 platform provides clinicians with comprehensive information on hearing device solutions for conductive, mixed and sensorineural hearing loss.” Journal of personalized medicine. vol. 12, no. 12. December 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12122027.

11. De Kleijn, Jasper L. et al. “Identification of pure-tone audiologic thresholds for pediatric cochlear implant candidacy: A systematic review.” JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery. vol. 144, no. 7. July 2018. pp. 630–638. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMAOTO.2018.0652.

12. Wiseman, Kathryn B et al. “Hearing thresholds, speech recognition and audibility as indicators for modifying intervention in children with hearing aids.” Ear and hearing. vol. 44, no. 4. July 2023. pp. 787–802. https:// doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001328.

13. Quick, Nancy et al. “A multilinguistic analysis of spelling among children with cochlear implants.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. vol. 24, no. 1. January 2019. pp. 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny029.

14. Minami, Shujiro et al. “Assessment of speech perception in deaf or hard of hearing children who received auditory-verbal therapy with hearing aids or cochlear implants.” International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. vol. 146. July 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110739.

15. Wang, Qiuju. “The critical thoughts on diagnosis and treatment of childhood hearing loss.” Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery. vol. 37, no. 3. March 2023. pp. 161–168. https://doi.org/10.13201/j. issn.2096-7993.2023.03.001.

16. Klein, Kelsey E. et al. “Delayed Lexical Access and Cascading Effects on Spreading Semantic Activation during Spoken Word Recognition in Children with Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.” Ear and Hearing. vol. 44, no. 2. March 2023. pp. 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001286. 

17. Sparreboom, Marloes et al. “The effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants for severe-to-profound deafness in children: A systematic review.” Otology and Neurotology. vol. 31, no. 7. September 2010. pp. 1062–1071. https:// doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e3d62c.

18. Bond, M. et al. “The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: A systematic review and economic model.” Health Technology Assessment. vol. 13, no. 44. 2009. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13440.

19. Lovett, Rosemary Elizabeth Susan et al. “Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: Criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.” Ear and Hearing. vol. 36, no. 1. January 2015. pp. 14–23. https:// doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000087.

20. Davidson, Lisa S. “Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.” Ear and Hearing. vol. 27, no. 5. October 2006. pp. 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. aud.0000234635.48564.ce.