International Consensus Statements on Intraoperative Testing for Cochlear Implantation Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: A wide variety of intraoperative tests are available in cochlear implantation. However, no consensus exists on which tests constitute the minimum necessary battery. We assembled an international panel of clinical experts to develop, refine, and vote upon a set of core consensus statements. DESIGN: A literature review was used to identify intraoperative tests currently used in the field and draft a set of provisional statements. For statement evaluation and refinement, we used a modified Delphi consensus panel structure. Multiple interactive rounds of voting, evaluation, and feedback were conducted to achieve convergence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine provisional statements were included in the original draft. In the first voting round, consensus was reached on 15 statements. Of the 14 statements that did not reach consensus, 12 were revised based on feedback provided by the expert practitioners, and 2 were eliminated. In the second voting round, 10 of the 12 revised statements reached a consensus. The two statements which did not achieve consensus were further revised and subjected to a third voting round. However, both statements failed to achieve consensus in the third round. In addition, during the final revision, one more statement was decided to be deleted due to overlap with another modified statement. CONCLUSIONS: A final core set of 24 consensus statements was generated, covering wide areas of intraoperative testing during CI surgery. These statements may provide utility as evidence-based guidelines to improve quality and achieve uniformity of surgical practice.

Decoding Billing Practices in Cochlear Implant Programs.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine current cochlear implant (CI) billing practices across CI audiologists in the United States, to determine if CI audiologists are following the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) edits, and to assess the CI audiologist's exposure to billing education. DESIGN: A 48-question survey was electronically distributed to and completed by audiologists who bill for CI services. Demographic data including work setting, population served, years of experience, number of CI patients managed per week, and exposure to billing education were collected. Data were analyzed to identify codes and modifiers used to bill for commonly performed CI procedures such as unilateral and bilateral CI programming, preoperative and postoperative testing, and objective measures. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 96 audiologists. The majority (86.3%, n = 82) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they understand billing and coding practices for cochlear implants and 94.7% (n = 89) rated themselves as somewhat to highly efficient when performing these practices. Only 16.8% (n = 16) of respondents reported receiving formal training for practice management, and half of the respondents (51.1%, n = 48) reported unfamiliarity with national billing guidelines. Those who received formal training reported higher billing efficiency. Wide variability was seen for various billing scenarios. Billing questions were presented, and answers were coded as correct or incorrect based on the NCCI edits. Respondents who reported higher agreement with understanding billing and who received formal training scored better on common billing questions related to the NCCI edits. CONCLUSIONS: Most CI audiologists rated themselves as efficient in billing; however, wide variance in billing practices was observed. Incorporating practice management and current billing education into daily practice and into audiology training programs is essential to clinic efficiency, practice management, and CI program viability. CI audiologists should be knowledgeable about appropriate billing practices to ensure long-term sustainability of programs.

The Effects of Paired versus Sequential Stimulation on Speech Recognition Outcomes of Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.

PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) sound-processing strategies are important to the overall success of a CI recipient. This study aimed to determine the effects of 2 Advanced Bionics (AB) CI-processing strategies, Optima-S and Optima-P, on speech recognition outcomes in adult CI users. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed at a tertiary academic medical center. Seventeen post-lingually deafened adult CI users (median age = 58.6 years; age range: 23.5-78.9 years) with long-term use of a paired sound-processing strategy (Optima-P) were reprogrammed with a sequential strategy (Optima-S). Demographic data and speech recognition scores with pre- and post-intervention analyses were collected and compared with respect to the 95% confidence interval for common CI word and sentence recognition tests. RESULTS: Using Optima-S sound-processing strategy, all patients (100%) performed equivalent or better on word and sentence testing than with Optima-P. More specifically, 17.6, 41.2, and 58.8% of the patients performed above the 95% confidence interval for speech recognition conditions of monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. All patients (100%) selected Optima-S as their preferred strategy for future CI use. CONCLUSION: Speech recognition performance with Optima-S processing strategy was stable or improved compared to results with Optima-P in all tested conditions, and subjective preference of Optima-S was selected by all patients. Given these results, CI clinicians should consider programming AB CI users with Optima-S sound-processing strategy to optimize overall speech recognition performance.

Effects of Age and Implanted Ear on Speech Recognition in Adults with Unilateral Cochlear Implants.

The objective of this study was to examine how age and implanted ear contribute to functional outcomes with cochlear implantation (CI). A retrospective review was performed on 96 adults who underwent unilateral CI. Older adults with right-ear implants had higher Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) scores at 1 year by 10.3% (p = 0.06). When adjusted to rationalized arcsine units (rau), right-ear HINT scores in older adults were higher by 12.1 rau (p = 0.04). Older adults had an 8.9% advantage on the right side compared to the left in post- versus preimplant scores for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant words (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed for younger adults. In conclusion, although adults of all ages experience improvements in speech perception following CI, there might be a subtle but consistent right-ear advantage in older adults.

Cochlear Implant Referral Criteria for the Spanish-Speaking Adult Population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the "60/60 Guideline" in a diverse patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Data were collected for adult patients (18 years and older) who underwent a cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) between January 2016 and March 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Development of the "60/60 Guideline" has provided better clarity on when to refer English-speaking patients for a CIE. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of this referral tool in the Spanish-speaking population. RESULTS: In our group of patients who underwent a traditional CIE (n = 402), 209 met unaided and aided traditional cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria. Of the 193 individuals who did not meet both components of traditional candidacy criteria, a majority met the aided component (86%) but only 4.6% met the unaided component. When applying the 60/60 Guideline to patients who met traditional criteria, there is a sensitivity rating of 84.7% and a specificity index of 50.3%. For English and Spanish speakers who met traditional criteria but did not meet the 60/60 Guideline, a majority (83.3% English, 87.5% Spanish) had a better ear word recognition score (WRS) greater than 60%, suggesting the unaided WRS is the more restrictive component of the "60/60 Guideline." CONCLUSION: Application of the "60/60 Guideline" is an effective method to identify potential CI candidates in the English-speaking population; however, it was less effective in the Spanish-speaking population. Spanish-speaking adults should be referred for a CIE when better ear pure tone average is greater than 60 dB hearing loss, regardless of their unaided WRS. This study highlights the need for inclusion of nonlinguistic test measures in the CI referral criteria and test battery to reduce CI access barriers for patients who speak a language other than English.

Functional Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: The Miami Cocktail Effect.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if pharmacological treatment with prednisone and L-N-acetylcysteine (STE + NAC) influence functional hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) surgery. STUDY DESIGNS: Preimplantation and postimplantation longitudinal case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Pediatric and adult recipients of CI with preimplantation functional hearing defined as an average of air-conducted thresholds at 125, 250, and 500 Hz (low-frequency pure-tone average [LFPTA]) <80 dB. INTERVENTIONS: Preimplantation and postimplantation audiometry. Weight-adjusted oral prednisone and L-N-acetylcysteine starting 2 days before surgery (Miami cocktail). Prednisone was continued for 3 days and L-N-acetylcysteine for 12 days after surgery, respectively. Cochlear implantation with conventional length electrodes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with LFPTA <80 dB, and LFPTA change at 1-year postimplantation. RESULTS: All 61 patients received intratympanic and intravenous dexamethasone intraoperatively, with 41 patients receiving STE + NAC and 20 patients not receiving STE + NAC. At 1-year postimplantation, the proportion of functional hearing preservation was 83% in the STE + NAC group compared with 55% of subjects who did not receive STE + NAC ( p = 0.0302). The median LFPTA change for STE + NAC-treated and not treated subjects was 8.33 dB (mean, 13.82 ± 17.4 dB) and 18.34 dB (mean, 26.5 ± 23.4 dB), respectively ( p = 0.0401, Wilcoxon rank test). Perioperative STE + NAC treatment resulted in 10 dB of LFPTA better hearing than when not receiving this treatment. Better low-frequency preimplantation hearing thresholds were predictive of postimplantation functional hearing. No serious side effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Perioperative STE + NAC, "The Miami Cocktail," was safe and superior to intraoperative steroids alone in functional hearing preservation 1-year after cochlear implantation.

A Consensus to Revise the Minimum Speech Test Battery-Version 3.

PURPOSE: The Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) for adults was introduced in 1996 (Nilsson et al., 1996) and subsequently updated in 2011 (Advanced-Bionics et al., 2011). The MSTB has been widely used by clinicians as a guide for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations and to document post-operative speech recognition performance. Due to changes in candidacy over the past 10 years, a revision to the MSTB was needed. METHOD: In 2022, the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training (ICIT) recruited a panel of expert CI audiologists to update and revise the MSTB. This panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus process to revise the test battery and to improve its applicability considering recent changes in CI care. RESULTS: This resulted in the MTSB-Version 3 (MSTB-3), which includes test protocols for identifying not only traditional CI candidates but also possible candidates for electric-acoustic stimulation and patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. The MSTB-3 provides information that supplements the earlier versions of the MSTB, such as recommendations of when to refer patients for a CI, recommended patient-reported outcome measures, considerations regarding the use of cognitive screeners, and sample report templates for clinical documentation of pre- and post-operative care. Electronic versions of test stimuli, along with all the materials described above, will be available to clinicians via the ICIT website (https://www.cochlearimplanttraining.com). CONCLUSION: The goal of the MSTB-3 is to be an evidence-based test battery that will facilitate a streamlined standard of care for adult CI candidates and recipients that will be widely used by CI clinicians.

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations.

Clinics are treating a growing number of patients with greater amounts of residual hearing. These patients often benefit from a bimodal hearing configuration in which acoustic input from a hearing aid on 1 ear is combined with electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant on the other ear. The current guidelines aim to review the literature and provide best practice recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of individuals with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who may benefit from bimodal hearing configurations. Specifically, the guidelines review: benefits of bimodal listening, preoperative and postoperative cochlear implant evaluation and programming, bimodal hearing aid fitting, contralateral routing of signal considerations, bimodal treatment for tinnitus, and aural rehabilitation recommendations.

Catchment Profile of Large Cochlear Implant Centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral CI centers. METHODS: Patients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients' residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas. RESULTS: Over the 6-year study period (2015-2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21-110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P < .001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P < .001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200-mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100-mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P < .001, r2 = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: While large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200-mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.

Factors Influencing Time to Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine demographic and audiologic factors associated with time to treatment with cochlear implantation. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained adult cochlear implant database. A total of 492 patients were implanted from 2012 to 2017. Time to implantation, preimplantation audiologic outcomes, and demographic data were collected. Multivariate analysis was undertaken to establish demographic/audiologic factors that predict time to cochlear implantation. RESULTS: Using multivariate analysis, nonwhite race (hazard ratio 0.157, p = 0.038) and increased age (hazard ratio 0.970, p = 0.038) were associated with increased time to cochlear implantation. Nonwhite patients had significantly higher pure-tone averages and lower speech recognition scores (consonant-nucleus-consonant words and AzBio sentences in quiet) and were less likely to use hearing aids as compared with white patients (all p < 0.001). Sex (p = 0.188), health insurance type (p = 0.255), preoperative hearing aid use (p = 0.174), and audiologic outcomes were not significant predictors of time to implantation. CONCLUSION: Nonwhite patients have poorer preoperative hearing and speech recognition and lower hearing aid use and are at risk for delay in referral and treatment for severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Other demographic factors, notably health insurance status, did not significantly predict time to cochlear implantation. Given the observed hearing healthcare disparities, special outreach programs may be needed to ensure timely cochlear implantation and effective hearing screening and rehabilitation.

When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine indications, surgical efficacy, and audiologic outcomes of replacing Advanced Bionics Clarion C1.2 internal devices (Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, CA) as a means of technology upgrade. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review, case series. METHODS: Ten patients were initially implanted as a child (mean age = 3.87 years) and underwent cochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) with current Advanced Bionics internal device as a young adult (mean duration of implant use = 15.66 years). Demographic data and pre- and post-CIR speech perception scores were collected. RESULTS: Technology upgrade was the primary (9) or secondary (1) motivation for CIR. No surgical complications were noted, and full insertion was obtained in nine cases. Intraoperative impedance levels and neural response imaging measures were within normal limits for eight patients. At most recent post-CIR follow-up evaluation, all patients (100%) performed within or better than the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR word and sentence recognition scores; and 55.6%, 50.0%, and 50.0% of patients performed above the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR scores for the CNC words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. CONCLUSION: Post-CIR audiological benefit was stable or improved compared to pre-CIR results in all categories by 3 months after reactivation. Given these results, patients who are unable to use the most current external processors due to incompatibility with a legacy internal device could consider reimplanation to optimize their overall performance with a cochlear implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:748-753, 2019.

Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates.

OBJECTIVE: Compare word recognition scores for adults undergoing cochlear implant evaluations (CIE) measured using earphones and hearing aids. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of data obtained during adult CIEs. SETTING: Tertiary cochlear implant center. PATIENTS: Two hundred eight ears in 183 subjects with greater than 10% word recognition scores measured with earphones. INTERVENTIONS/MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Preoperative pure-tone thresholds and word recognition scores measured with earphones and hearing aids. RESULTS: A review of audiological data obtained from 2012 to 2017 during adult CIEs was conducted. Overall, a weak positive correlation (r = 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.40, p < 0.001) was observed between word recognition scores measured with earphones and hearing aids. Earphone to aided differences (EAD) ranged from -38 to +72% (mean 14.3 ±â€Š19.9%). Consistent with EADs, 108 ears (51.9%) had earphone scores that were significantly higher than aided word recognition scores (+EAD), as determined by 95% confidence intervals; for 14 ears (6.7%), earphone scores were significantly lower than aided scores (-EAD). Moreover, of the patients with earphone word recognition scores ≥50%, 82.6% were CI candidates based on aided AzBio+10 dB SNR scores. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the limited diagnostic value of word recognition scores measured under earphones for patients undergoing CIE. Nevertheless, aided word recognition is rarely measured before CIEs, which limits the information available to determine CI candidacy and referral for CIEs. Earlier and routine measurement of aided word recognition may help guide clinical decision making by determining the extent to which patients are achieving maximum benefit with their hearing aids or should consider cochlear implantation.

Evaluation of Outcome Variability Associated With Lateral Wall, Mid-scalar, and Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays When Controlling for Preoperative Patient Characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the impact of electrode array selection on audiometric performance when controlling for baseline patient characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of a prospective cochlear implant (CI) database (January 1, 2012-May 31, 2017). SETTING: Tertiary Care University Hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-eight adult CI recipients. INTERVENTIONS/MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Hearing outcomes were measured through unaided/aided pure tone thresholds and speech recognition testing before and after cochlear implantation. All reported postoperative results were performed at least 6 months after CI activation. All device manufacturers were represented. RESULTS: Of the 328 patients, 234 received lateral wall (LW) arrays, 46 received perimodiolar (PM) arrays, and 48 received mid-scalar (MS) arrays. Patients receiving PM arrays had significantly poorer preoperative earphone and aided PTAs and SRTs, and aided Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant(CNC) word and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with patients receiving LW arrays (all p ≤ 0.04), and poorer PTAs and AzBio +10 SNR scores compared with MS recipients (all p ≤ 0.02). No preoperative audiological variables were found to significantly differ between MS and LW patients. After controlling for preoperative residual hearing and speech recognition ability in a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, no statistically significant difference in audiological outcomes was detected (CNC words, AzBio quiet, or AzBio +10 SNR) among the three electrode array types (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: While previous studies have demonstrated superior postoperative speech recognition scores in LW electrode array recipients, these differences lose significance when controlling for baseline hearing and speech recognition ability. These data demonstrate the proclivity for implanting individuals with greater residual hearing with LW electrodes and its impact on postoperative results.

Bilateral cochlear implantation in a child with Johanson Blizzard Syndrome.

Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) occurs in more than 80% of cases of Johanson Blizzard Syndrome (JBS). However, limited knowledge exists in medical literature of cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes in children with JBS. We report the case of a 5 year-old male with JBS and bilateral CI. While minimal progress in spoken language scores was noted after 4 years of bilateral CI use, substantial improvements in discrimination of speech sounds and audibility of spoken language and environmental sounds were documented. Cochlear implantation is an available treatment option of profound SNHL in children with JBS even if spoken language outcomes are marginal.

Cochlear Implantation in Inner Ear Malformations: Systematic Review of Speech Perception Outcomes and Intraoperative Findings.

Objective (1) To analyze reported speech perception outcomes in patients with inner ear malformations who undergo cochlear implantation, (2) to review the surgical complications and findings, and (3) to compare the 2 classification systems of Jackler and Sennaroglu. Data Sources PubMed, Scopus (including Embase), Medline, and CINAHL Plus. Review Methods Fifty-nine articles were included that contained speech perception and/or intraoperative data. Cases were differentiated depending on whether the Jackler or Sennaroglu malformation classification was used. A meta-analysis of proportions examined incidences of complete insertion, gusher, and facial nerve aberrancy. For speech perception data, weighted means and standard deviations were calculated for all malformations for short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Speech tests were grouped into 3 categories-closed-set words, open-set words, and open-set sentences-and then compared through a comparison-of-means t test. Results Complete insertion was seen in 81.8% of all inner ear malformations (95% CI: 72.6-89.5); gusher was reported in 39.1% of cases (95% CI: 30.3-48.2); and facial nerve anomalies were encountered in 34.4% (95% CI: 20.1-50.3). Significant improvements in average performance were seen for closed- and open-set tests across all malformation types at 12 months postoperatively. Conclusions Cochlear implantation outcomes are favorable for those with inner ear malformations from a surgical and speech outcome standpoint. Accurate classification of anatomic malformations, as well as standardization of postimplantation speech outcomes, is necessary to improve understanding of the impact of implantation in this difficult patient population.

Use of Adult Patient Focus Groups to Develop the Initial Item Bank for a Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life Instrument.

Importance: No instrument exists to assess quality of life (QOL) in adult cochlear implant (CI) users that has been developed and validated using accepted scientific standards. Objective: To develop a CI-specific QOL instrument for adults in accordance with the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: As required in the PROMIS guidelines, patient focus groups participated in creation of the initial item bank. Twenty-three adult CI users were divided into 1 of 3 focus groups stratified by word recognition ability. Three moderator-led focus groups were conducted based on grounded theory on December 3, 2016. Two reviewers independently analyzed focus group recordings and transcripts, with a third reviewer available to resolve discrepancies. All data were reviewed and reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. The setting was a tertiary referral center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coded focus group data. Results: The 23 focus group participants (10 [43%] female; mean [range] age, 68.1 [46.2-84.2] years) represented a wide range of income levels, education levels, listening modalities, CI device manufacturers, duration of CI use, and age at implantation. Data saturation was determined to be reached before the conclusion of each of the focus groups. After analysis of the transcripts, the central themes identified were communication, emotion, environmental sounds, independence and work function, listening effort, social isolation and ability to socialize, and sound clarity. Cognitive interviews were carried out on 20 adult CI patients who did not participate in the focus groups to ensure item clarity. Based on these results, the initial QOL item bank and prototype were developed. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient focus groups drawn from the target population are the preferred method of identifying content areas and domains for developing the item bank for a CI-specific QOL instrument. Compared with previously used methods, the use of patient-centered item development for a CI-specific QOL instrument will more accurately reflect patient experience and increase our understanding of how CI use affects QOL.

The influence of obesity on operating room time and perioperative complications in cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: The rising incidence of obesity in the United States is associated with increased healthcare expenditures and resource allocation. Obesity has been associated with prolonged operating times during surgical procedures. The primary objective of this study is to compare body mass index (BMI) to length of surgery during cochlear implantation. METHODS: A retrospective case control study from a tertiary academic referral center was performed. Patients included were adults who underwent primary, single-sided cochlear implantation with documented BMI and operating room (OR) times from January 2009 to July 2015. The following data were collected: BMI, total operating room time (TORT), surgical operating room time (SORT), ASA status, perioperative and postoperative complications, age, and gender. RESULTS: Two hundreds and thirty-four patients were included and stratified into obese (BMI >30) and non-obese (BMI < 30) categories. Statistical analysis was performed comparing TORT against the obesity category along with other variables. Independent sample t-test demonstrated that obesity increases TORT and SORT by 16.8 min (P = 0.0002) and 9.3 min (P = 0.03), respectively, compared to the non-obese group. Multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated no statistically significant impact of gender, or ASA status on total operating or surgical time. Obesity was associated with increased perioperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 6.21; 95% CI, 1.18-32.80; P = 0.03) and postoperative complications (OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.29-12.26; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity leads to longer TORT and SORT during primary cochlear implant surgery. Obesity is also associated with increased perioperative and postoperative complications compared to non-obese patients. These data have implications with utilization of operating room resources.

A Revision Surgery for Cochlear Implantation in a Case of Incomplete Partition Type I.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cochlear malformations were long considered poor candidates for cochlear implantation (CI), and surgical approaches different than the standard facial recess approach were used to access the inner ear. There is no previous long-term follow-up of a patient with significantly malformed inner ear operated through an untraditional route and requiring a revision surgery. PURPOSE: This case provides a long-term follow-up from the initial surgery, a short-term follow-up from the revision surgery, and it illustrates the evolving classification of inner ear malformations as well as the potential problems associated with nonstandard approaches to the cochlea. RESEARCH DESIGN: A case report. INTERVENTION: Herein, we report a case of revision CI in a patient with incomplete partition type I, through the round window via a facial recess approach, 18 yr after an initial implantation via a transmastoid labyrinthotomy approach. RESULTS: The patient had an uncomplicated surgery, and after activation, she noted auditory perception on all electrodes without facial stimulation. A sound field sound awareness threshold was obtained at 15 dB HL. CONCLUSIONS: As the prior generation of cochlear implant recipients ages, the probability of a revision surgery for various causes increases. Cochlear implant surgeons should be aware of the potential pitfalls associated in these often challenging cases.

Safety of cochlear implantation before 12 months of age: Medical University of South Carolina and Pediatric American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality improvement program outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety profile of cochlear implantation (CI) in infants <12 months old. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of institutional (Medical University of South Carolina [MUSC]) and national data (Pediatric American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [ACS-NSQIP]). METHODS: Cases were subdivided into two groups according to age at CI: <12 months and 12 to 18 months. The primary outcome measure of interest was occurrence of a postoperative medical or surgical complication. Operative time, anesthesia time, time in the postoperative anesthesia care unit, and length of stay were also assessed. RESULTS: In infants <12 months of age, the incidence of a 30-day postoperative surgical complication using the ACS-NSQIP database was 3.6%; this did not differ from the rate observed in the 12- to 18-month-old group (3.2%, P = 1.0). In the MUSC series, the occurrence of a 30-day postoperative complication in children <12 months old was comparable (2.7%). At longer-term follow-up (mean = 3.7 years), the incidence of a postoperative surgical complication in infants <12 months old using MUSC data was 13.5%. When compared to older children at longer-term follow-up, no difference was noted (12.7%, P = 1.0). The incidence of a postoperative medical or anesthetic complication in children <12 months of age was extremely rare in both MUSC and ACS-NSQIP series (0% and 1.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Institutional and national data demonstrate that CI in children <12 months of age is a safe procedure. Although infants <12 months old are at risk for postoperative complications, the rates of surgical and medical complications were no different compared to children 12 to 18 months of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 126:707-712, 2016.

Outcomes of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze speech recognition outcomes in adult cochlear implant recipients who have asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss between the two ears. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 35 adults with asymmetric hearing loss. Preoperative unaided pure-tone averages (PTA), and pre- and post-op (6 and 12 mo) aided Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) words and sentence recognition scores were obtained for ears in isolation (opposite ear plugged). Patients were categorized according to the PTA of the implanted and contralateral ears as (a) moderate-severe, (b) moderate-profound, and (c) severe-profound. SETTING: A single tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Adults with asymmetric PTA implanted unilaterally at our institution. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Post-implantation word, phoneme, and sentence recognition in the cochlear implant alone testing condition. RESULTS: Patients who were implanted in the worse-hearing ear (n = 21) performed significantly better on CNC words and phonemes at 6 and 12 months than patients who were implanted in the better-hearing ear (n = 14). Patients with the worse ear implanted also obtained 6 to 12% higher sentence recognition scores than the group received an implant in their better ear, although this difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.06 at 6 mo; p = 0.1 at 12 mo). CONCLUSION: Patients with asymmetrical hearing loss who were implanted in the worse-hearing ear achieved 15% greater CNC word scores and 6 to 12% greater sentence scores than patients implanted in the better-hearing ear in the first year after surgery. Our results provide further support for clinicians to use caution if considering implanting the better-hearing ear in patients with asymmetric hearing loss.