Can Electrocochleography Help Preserve Hearing After Cochlear Implantation With Full Electrode Insertion?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) monitoring during cochlear implant (CI) surgery on postoperative hearing preservation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Ten high-volume, tertiary care CI centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients with sensorineural hearing loss meeting the CI criteria who selected an Advanced Bionics CI. METHODS: Patients were randomized to CI surgery either with audible ECochG monitoring available to the surgeon during electrode insertion or without ECochG monitoring. Hearing preservation was determined by comparing preoperative unaided low-frequency (125-, 250-, and 500-Hz) pure-tone average (LF-PTA) to postoperative LF-PTA at CI activation. Pre- and post-CI computed tomography was used to determine electrode scalar location and electrode translocation. RESULTS: Eighty-five adult CI candidates were enrolled. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) unaided preoperative LF-PTA across the sample was 54 (17) dB HL. For the whole sample, hearing preservation was "good" (i.e., LF-PTA change 0-15 dB) in 34.5%, "fair" (i.e., LF-PTA change >15-29 dB) in 22.5%, and "poor" (i.e., LF-PTA change ≥30 dB) in 43%. For patients randomized to ECochG "on," mean (SD) LF-PTA change was 27 (20) dB compared with 27 (23) dB for patients randomized to ECochG "off" ( p = 0.89). Seven percent of patients, all of whom were randomized to ECochG off, showed electrode translocation from the scala tympani into the scala vestibuli. CONCLUSIONS: Although intracochlear ECochG during CI surgery has important prognostic utility, our data did not show significantly better hearing preservation in patients randomized to ECochG "on" compared with ECochG "off."

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.

Audiology Practices in the Preoperative Evaluation and Management of Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates.

Importance: Currently, no clear guidelines exist regarding clinical testing methods for identifying adult cochlear implant (CI) candidates. Indications provided by the US Food and Drug Administration, Medicare, and private insurers are ambiguous concerning test materials and the level and mode of test presentation. This could lead to wide variability in clinical assessment and, potentially, unequal access to CIs for individuals with clinically significant hearing loss. Objective: To examine the preoperative testing methods used by audiologists in evaluating adult CI candidates across the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey assessing audiology practice patterns was created using a Research Electronic Data Capture system hosted at the University of Miami. A link to a survey (65 questions in multiple-choice or rank-order format was distributed electronically along with a request for completion to members of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance and to the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training forum. Responses were collected from January 17 to June 4, 2018. Participation was limited to audiologists who evaluate adult CI candidates, and respondents who do not provide adult CI care were excluded. Collected demographic information included work setting, years of experience, and highest level of education attained. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges were from aggregated responses concerning hearing aid verification methods; testing methods, materials, and practices; nonauditory factors that might affect CI candidacy; audiology practice patterns; and expanded indications for CIs. Results: Anonymized surveys were returned by 99 respondents; because surveys were available electronically, the number of audiologists who viewed the survey but did not respond was not available. Seven respondents identified themselves as pediatric specialists and were excluded, resulting in a total of 92 surveys available for analysis (denominators vary because respondents could complete the survey without answering all questions). Seventy percent of respondents (51 of 72) were doctors of audiology, and nearly 50% (33 of 74) were employed at universities and academic centers performing more than 50 CIs per year. When assessing adult candidacy for implant, most respondents reported using test materials from the Minimum Speech Test Battery: 96% (51 of 53), using AzBio sentences in quiet; 89% (47 of 53), AzBio sentences in noise; and 100% (53 of 53), the consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant, monosyllabic words test. However, these tests were applied inconsistently, with 39 of 53 respondents (74%) reporting use of a sound pressure level scale and the other 14 (26%) a hearing level scale at various decibel levels, and with some using a single signal-to-noise ratio and others using multiple ratios for sound-in-noise tests. Respondents' definitions of the best aided listening condition for assessing implant candidates also varied widely. Among the nonauditory factors ranked most important for assessing CI candidacy were patient's level of cognition and expectations of CI; yet, few respondents reported including cognitive or psychological tests in the assessment protocol. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study reveal considerable variability in preoperative testing methods and practices across health care professionals assessing adult candidates for CI. This lack of standardization in the delivery of care may increase the risk for health care inequities, specifically in access to care for adults with clinically significant hearing loss.

Clinical, surgical, and electrical factors impacting residual hearing in cochlear implant surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: This study recommends using soft surgical principal and round window insertion to protect residual hearing with favorable anatomical exposure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the electrical stimulation on the organ of corti and hearing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to analyze various factors that impact on preservation of residual hearing post-implantation. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed to analyze loss of residual hearing in a cohort of 225 patients implanted in a large academic center. Sixty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The impact of age at implantation, gender, etiology of hearing loss, cochleostomy vs round window insertion, partial vs full insertion, and effect of initial stimulation were analyzed using appropriate statistical analysis. RESULTS: The overall hearing preservation rate for all implanted patients was 64%. Loss of residual hearing was significantly more observed in cases of cochleostomy and/or non-soft surgical techniques. No correlation was observed with age at implantation, gender, side of implant, device manufacturer, and presence of pre-lingual deafness vs post-lingual, full or partial electrode insertion. In addition, there was a small but significant decrease in hearing between pre-stimulation and post-stimulation audiograms at 6000 Hz.

Temporal and spectral contributions to musical instrument identification and discrimination among cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the contributions of envelope and fine-structure to the perception of timbre by cochlear implant (CI) users as compared to normal hearing (NH) listeners. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort comparison study. Normal hearing and cochlear implant patients were tested. Three experiments were performed in sound field using musical notes altered to affect the characteristic pitch of an instrument and the acoustic envelope. Experiment 1 assessed the ability to identify the instrument playing each note, while experiments 2 and 3 assessed the ability to discriminate the different stimuli. RESULTS: Normal hearing subjects performed better than CI subjects in all instrument identification tasks, reaching statistical significance for 4 of 5 stimulus conditions. Within the CI population, acoustic envelope modifications did not significantly affect instrument identification or discrimination. With envelope and pitch cues removed, fine structure discrimination performance was similar between normal hearing and CI users for the majority of conditions, but some specific instrument comparisons were significantly more challenging for CI users. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implant users perform significantly worse than normal hearing listeners on tasks of instrument identification. However, cochlear implant listeners can discriminate differences in envelope and some fine structure components of musical instrument sounds as well as normal hearing listeners. The results indicated that certain fine structure cues are important for cochlear implant users to make discrimination judgments, and therefore may affect interpretation toward associating with a specific instrument for identification.