Acceptance and Benefit of Electroacoustic Stimulation in Children.

OBJECTIVE: Children with high-frequency severe-to-profound hearing loss and low-frequency residual hearing who do not derive significant benefit from hearing aids are now being considered for cochlear implantation. Previous research shows that hearing preservation is possible and may be desirable for the use of electroacoustic stimulation (EAS) in adults, but this topic remains underexplored in children. The goal of this study was to explore factors relating to hearing preservation, acceptance, and benefits of EAS for children. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Forty children (48 ears) with preoperative low-frequency pure-tone averages of 75 dB HL or less at 250 and 500 Hz (n = 48). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent cochlear implantation with a standard-length electrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Low-frequency audiometric thresholds, speech perception, and EAS usage were measured at initial stimulation, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between children with and without hearing preservation, and between EAS users and nonusers. RESULTS: Hearing was preserved at similar rates as adults but worse for children with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Fewer than half of children who qualified to use EAS chose to do so, citing a variety of audiologic and nonaudiologic reasons. No differences were detected in speech perception scores across the groups for words, sentences, or sentences in noise tests. CONCLUSIONS: Neither hearing preservation nor EAS use resulted in superior speech perception in children with preoperative residual hearing; rather, all children performed well after implantation.

Cochlear Implantation Under Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in the Elderly: First 100 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes on a large series of elderly patients who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS). METHODS: Retrospective chart review on 100 consecutive elderly patients (> 65 years) who underwent CI with LA-CS at a tertiary care center between August 2013 and January 2020. An age-matched control group of 50 patients who underwent CI with general anesthesia (GA) are used for comparison. Outcomes measured included time in the operating room, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and rate of adverse events. RESULTS: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS was successfully performed in 99 (99%) patients. One patient requiring conversion to GA intraoperatively. No patients in the LA-CS group experienced cardiopulmonary adverse events; however, three patients (6%) in the GA group experienced minor events including atrial fibrillation and/or demand ischemia. Overnight observation in the hospital due to postoperative medical concerns or prolonged wake-up from anesthesia was required in one patient (1%) from the LA-CS cohort and 12 patients (24%) from the GA cohort. Perioperative adverse events exclusive to the LA-CS group included severe intraoperative vertigo (8%), temporary facial nerve paresis (3%), and wound infection (1%). The average amount of time spent in the operating room was 37 minutes less for procedures performed under LA-CS compared to GA (P < .05). The average amount of time in recovery was similar for both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS offers many benefits and is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective alternative to GA when performed by experienced CI surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E946-E951, 2021.

Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the long-term benefits of implantation in patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, this report provides 5-year follow-up on a group of implant recipients who were subjects of the Cochlear™ Nucleus® Hybrid™ L24 Implant System pivotal clinical study. METHODS: The results of three related clinical studies were compiled to provide outcome data after 1, 3, and 5 years of implant use in a group of subjects who presented with preoperative high-frequency hearing loss and were implanted with a Nucleus Hybrid L24 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) cochlear implant. A subset of the 50 adult subjects (N = 32) who participated in the Hybrid L24 pivotal Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) completed comprehensive evaluations at 12 months postactivation, 3 years postactivation, and then as part of a postapproval study at 5 years postactivation. Testing included audiometric, speech perception, and subjective satisfaction measures. RESULTS: Mean unilateral speech perception performance was significantly improved at all postoperative intervals compared to preoperative best-aided results and has remained stable to 5 years postactivation. Ninety-four percent of subjects had measurable hearing, and 72% continued to use electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear after 5 years of implant use. Subjective satisfaction results support objective performance improvements. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate long-term success of patients with high-frequency hearing loss following Hybrid L24 (Cochlear) cochlear implantation. Benefits include speech perception abilities significantly better than those in the preoperative best-aided condition, with additional benefit in those using electric-acoustic stimulation in the implanted ear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 1939-1945, 2018.

Cochlear implantation under conscious sedation with local anesthesia; Safety, Efficacy, Costs, and Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and satisfaction of patients undergoing cochlear implantation under conscious sedation versus general anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review of 20 patients who underwent cochlear implantation under conscious sedation which was compared to 20 age-matched patients where surgery was performed under general anesthesia. METHODS: Perioperative times, length of stay, anesthesia drug costs, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Conscious sedation was associated with decreased drug costs, surgery time, and anesthesia time. Length of stay was significantly longer for patients undergoing general anesthesia. Patient satisfaction was superior with conscious sedation. Perioperative morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation for cochlear implantation is a safe, efficient, and cost-effective alternative to general anesthesia. The efficacy of conscious sedation for cochlear implant surgery may expand the treatment of profound hearing loss to the elderly who are deemed too sick for general anesthesia or are fearful of the cognitive or medical consequences of general anesthesia.

Conscious sedation and local anesthesia for patients undergoing neurotologic and complex otologic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Is conscious sedation an effective, safe, and efficient anesthetic choice in patients undergoing select neurotologic and otologic procedures? STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Six patients underwent eight neurotologic procedures including cerebrospinal fluid leak and encephalocele repair, and primary and revision cochlear implant surgery. Patients were deemed poor candidates for general anesthesia secondary to medical comorbidities. These were compared to 11 control patients who underwent same procedures under general anesthesia with intubation. INTERVENTION: Dexmedetomidine infusion was utilized as the primary agent for conscious sedation in this high-risk patient population because, unlike other commonly used sedatives, it preserves normal respirations while providing adequate analgesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) scores were calculated for the study group. We measured total anesthesia, and perioperative and recovery times. Cost of anesthetic agents was considered and any adverse effects were noted. Patient satisfaction with the operative experience was assessed with telephone surveys. RESULTS: P-POSSUM scores were high for the study group. Postoperative anesthesia was shorter for the study patients undergoing conscious sedation. Difference in cost of anesthetic agents was negligible. The adverse effects were few and as expected for the type of procedure. Patients reported satisfaction and comfort with their operative experience. CONCLUSION: Select neurotologic and otologic procedures can be safely, effectively, and efficiently performed under conscious sedation with dexmedetomidine infusion as the primary anesthetic choice for patients who are deemed poor medical candidates for general endotracheal anesthesia.