Benefits of Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: Data From the House Clinic-University of Southern California-University of California, Los Angeles Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to benefit patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of tinnitus reduction, localization, speech understanding, and quality of life (QoL). While previous studies have shown cochlear implantation may benefit SSD patients, it is unclear which point of comparison is most relevant: baseline performance before implantation versus performance with normal-hearing (NH) ear after implantation. In this study, CI outcomes were assessed in SSD patients before and up to 6 mo postactivation. Benefits of cochlear implantation were assessed relative to binaural performance before implantation or relative to performance with the NH ear alone after implantation. DESIGN: Here, we report data for 10 patients who completed a longitudinal, prospective, Food and Drug Administration-approved study of cochlear implantation for SSD patients. All subjects had severe to profound unilateral hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the other ear. All patients were implanted with the MED-EL CONCERTO Flex 28 device. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise, localization, and tinnitus severity (with the CI on or off) were measured before implantation (baseline) and at 1, 3, 6 mo postactivation of the CI processor. Performance was measured with both ears (binaural), the CI ear alone, and the NH ear alone (the CI ear was plugged and muffed). Tinnitus severity, dizziness severity, and QoL were measured using questionnaires administered before implantation and 6 mo postactivation. RESULTS: Significant CI benefits were observed for tinnitus severity, localization, speech understanding, and QoL. The degree and time course of CI benefit depended on the outcome measure and the reference point. Relative to binaural baseline performance, significant and immediate (1 mo postactivation) CI benefits were observed for tinnitus severity and speech performance in noise, but localization did not significantly improve until 6 mo postactivation; questionnaire data showed significant improvement in QoL 6 mo postactivation. Relative to NH-only performance after implantation, significant and immediate benefits were observed for tinnitus severity and localization; binaural speech understanding in noise did not significantly improve during the 6-mo study period, due to variability in NH-only performance. There were no correlations between behavioral and questionnaire data, except between tinnitus visual analog scale scores at 6 mo postactivation and Tinnitus Functional Index scores at 6 mo postactivation. CONCLUSIONS: The present behavioral and subjective data suggest that SSD patients greatly benefit from cochlear implantation. However, to fully understand the degree and time course of CI benefit, the outcome measure and point of comparison should be considered. From a clinical perspective, binaural baseline performance is a relevant point of comparison. The lack of correlation between behavioral and questionnaire data suggest that represent independent measures of CI benefit for SSD patients.

Cochlear Implantation in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Patients: Speech Perception and Quality of Life.

OBJECTIVES: There is a limited understanding of the impact of cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT), given the scarcity of reported cases. We aim to evaluate the audiological outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after CI in CMT. METHODS: Multi-institutional, university-affiliated, tertiary-referral centers, retrospective chart review.Our cohort includes 5 patients with CMT. Patients' charts were reviewed for demographic characteristics, operation notes, and pre- and post-implantation audiology evaluation. Patients completed the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-10 (CIQOL-10) Global questionnaire. RESULTS: Pre-implantation, the mean pure tone average was 84.1 ± 7.2 dB, and the mean word recognition score was 2.4% in the implanted ear. AzBio sentence test was performed in quiet, revealing a mean of 4 ± 1.4% in the implanted ear. Post-implantation, PTA results were all within the mild hearing loss range (mean 33.0 ± 5.9 dB). Post-CI, AZ-Bio test results were 5%, 65%, and 74% (for 3 patients), and HINT scores were 55% and 58% (for 2 patients). The mean score of the CIQOL-10 questionnaire was 42.7 ± 10.47 (range 1-100). Patients were most satisfied with their ability to listen to the television or radio, have conversations in a quiet environment, and feel comfortable being themselves. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the most extensive series of CI in CMT-associated sensorineural hearing loss and auditory neuropathy. Our cohort suggests that CI is a safe and reliable method for hearing rehabilitation that can achieve good speech performance and improve QoL in CMT patients.

Cochlear implantation performance outcomes in patients over 80 years old.

Objective: To examine device datalogging characteristics and postoperative performance in the very elderly CI users. Methods: Retrospective chart review of postoperative speech recognition outcomes and datalogging characteristics in patients older than 80 years old who underwent cochlear implantation and remain active users with longer than 6 months post-activation follow-up. Resultss: The mean age at implantation was 84.8 ± 3.8 years old. Pre- and post-operative AzBio sentences in quiet scores were 12.4 ± 16.4% and 53.0 ± 23.5%, respectively (p < .001). Pre- and post-operative consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores were 9.4 ± 12.8% and 40.5 ± 20.7%, respectively (p < .001). A nonsignificant negative correlation was noted between the age of implantation and postoperative CNC words and AzBio sentence performance. Significantly decreased performance was noted in the subpopulation with a preoperative diagnosis of dementia. Mean daily use was 10.9 h per day. When available the mean daily usage distribution was 16% speech in noise, 19.1% speech, 51% quiet, 3.8% music, and 9.6% noise. A significant positive correlation was noted between daily use and AzBio sentence and CNC word performance. Conclusions: Very elderly patients have significant postoperative auditory performance benefits after CI. Mean daily use is comparable to previously published results in the younger population. Age of implantation does not play a significant role in overall performance. Elderly patients who are medically cleared for implantation receive significant postoperative benefits.

Implementation of Image-Guided Cochlear Implant Programming at a Distant Site.

Our objective was to prospectively evaluate implementation of a new cochlear implant (CI) mapping technique, image-guided cochlear implant programming (IGCIP), at a site distant to the site of development. IGCIP consists of identifying the geometric relationship between CI electrodes and the modiolus and deactivating electrodes that interfere with neighboring electrodes. IGCIP maps for 17 ears of 15 adult CI patients were developed at a central image-processing center, Vanderbilt, and implemented at a distant tertiary care center, House Ear Institute. Before IGCIP and again 4 weeks after, qualitative and quantitative measures were made. While there were no statistically significant groupwise differences detected between baseline and IGCIP qualitative or quantitative measures, 11 of the 17 (64.7%) elected to keep the IGCIP map. Computed tomography (CT) image quality appears to be crucial for successful IGCIP, with 100% of those with high-resolution CT scans keeping their maps compared to 53.8% without.

Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant.

OBJECTIVE: This study consisted of a within-subjects comparison of speech recognition and patient preference when subjects used two different cochlear implant speech processing strategies with a Clarion 1.2 (enhanced bipolar) device: Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS), and Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS). These two strategies used two different electrode configurations: the SAS strategy used bipolar stimulation, whereas the CIS strategy used monopolar stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter study that used a within-subjects balanced crossover design. Experience with the two strategies was replicated in each subject using an ABAB design. Order of strategy use was balanced across all subjects. SETTING: The study was carried out at several cochlear implant centers affiliated with tertiary medical centers. PATIENTS: Subjects consisted of 25 postlingually deafened adults who received a Clarion cochlear implant. INTERVENTIONS: Total involvement by each subject was 14 weeks. Speech perception testing and sound quality assessments were performed after use with each strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures include speech perception data and patient responses to questionnaires regarding speech and sound quality. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that performance did not differ significantly by the strategy encountered first as relative to the strategy encountered second and that the order in which a strategy was used did not appear to affect subjects' eventual preference for a particular strategy. Although speech recognition scores tended to be higher for CIS for most of the test measures at most of the test intervals, the analysis of variance to evaluate differences in strategy did not reveal a significant effect of strategy. Further analysis of scores obtained at the replication interval, however, revealed that scores obtained with CIS were significantly higher than scores obtained with SAS on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and noise. In addition, significantly more patients indicated a final preference for the CIS strategy than for the SAS strategy. Importantly, both the analysis evaluating order and the analysis evaluating strategy revealed significant effects of evaluation period, indicating that time/experience with the implant had a significant effect on scores for each strategy, regardless of the order in which it was used (first or second). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that important learning occurs during the first several weeks of cochlear implant use, making it difficult to adequately compare performance with different speech processing strategies. However, the finding that patients often prefer the strategy they understand speech the best with supports the clinical practice of letting adult patients select their preferred strategy without formally evaluating speech perception with each available strategy.