Stimulation Crosstalk Between Cochlear And Vestibular Spaces During Cochlear Electrical Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Possible beneficial "crosstalk" during cochlear implant stimulation on otolith end organs has been hypothesized. The aim of this case-control study is to analyze the effect of electrical cochlear stimulation on the vestibule (otolith end-organ), when using a cochleo-vestibular implant, comparing vestibular stimulation (VI) and cochlear stimulation (CI). METHODS: Four patients with bilateral vestibulopathy were included. A double electrode array research implant was implanted in all cases. Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), VOR gain measured by using vestibular head impulse test (vHIT), acoustic cervical myogenic responses (cVEMP) recordings, and electrical cVEMP were used in all cases. Trans-impedance Matrix (TIM) analysis was used to evaluate the current flow from the cochlea to the vestibule. RESULTS: While patients did not have any clinical vestibular improvement with the CI stimulation alone, gait metrics of the patients revealed improvement when the vestibular electrode was stimulated. The average improvement in the DGI was 38% when the vestibular implant was activated, returning to the normal range in all cases. Our findings suggest that any current flow from the cochlear space to the otolith organs was insufficient for effective cross-stimulation. The functional results correlated with the data obtained in TIM analysis, confirming that there is no current flow from the cochlea to the vestibule. CONCLUSION: The only way to produce effective electrical otolith end-organ stimulation, demonstrated with this research implant, is by direct electrical stimulation of the otolith end organs. No effective cross-stimulation was found from cochlear electrode stimulation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:2349-2355, 2024.

The Need for Vestibular Implants in a Tertiary Referral Ear, Nose, and Throat Center and Its Relation to Hearing Status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BVP) are at increased risk of falling and have poor quality of life. Several research groups are currently developing and investigating vestibular implants to treat BVP. The goal was to identify how many patients can be considered eligible for vestibular implantation. METHODS: The objective vestibular implantation criteria for research were applied to the results of the caloric irrigation test, the sinusoidal harmonic acceleration test, the video head impulse test, and the cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential tests. RESULTS: Vestibular implant eligibility was situated between 3.6% and 15.7% (semicircular canal implant: 3.6%; otolith implant: 15.7%; combined implant: 4.8%). Only 16 out of the 29 patients (55%) eligible for a vestibular implant had bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss. The remaining 45% (13/29) thus have better hearing in at least 1 ear. CONCLUSION: Vestibular implant eligibility in an ear, nose, and throat department was situated between 3.6% and 15.7%, depending on the type of implant that was considered. In addition, the data showed that 45% of the eligible patients had normal-to-moderate hearing in at least 1 ear. In other words, only recruiting patients with (bilateral) severe-to-profound hearing loss for vestibular implantation leads to the systematic exclusion of about half of the candidates. Structure-preserving surgical techniques are thus a major future challenge in the field of vestibular implantation.

Fear avoidance beliefs, anxiety, and depression in healthy individuals and persons with vestibular disorders across cultures.

Background/introduction: In persons with vestibular disorders, disturbed vestibular input and accompanying dizziness can be associated with anxiety or depression. To avoid dizziness, persons with vestibular disorders can develop mal-adaptive fear avoidance behaviors which can negatively influence daily life functioning. The aims of this study were to (1) document different psychological factors in patients with vestibular disorders and healthy adults across cultures and (2) to assess the convergent validity of the 9-item Vestibular Activities Avoidance Instrument (VAAI), which quantifies fear avoidance beliefs. Methods: Psychological factors and disability were measured in Dutch-speaking healthy adults and English- and Dutch-speaking persons with vestibular disorders using the VAAI, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). The convergent validity of the VAAI was investigated by performing correlation analyses between the VAAI, the DHI, the HADS, and the ABC. Results: A total of 151 Dutch-speaking healthy adults, 404 English-speaking participants with vestibular disorders, and 126 Dutch-speaking participants with vestibular disorders were included. Participants with vestibular disorders presented with higher levels of fear avoidance beliefs (VAAI), perceived disability (DHI), anxiety and depression (HADS), and lower confidence during balance activities (ABC) compared to healthy adults. Regarding the convergent validity of the VAAI, there were moderate to strong correlation coefficients (r = 0.39-0.74) between fear avoidance and the DHI, HADS, and ABC in participants with vestibular disorders. Conclusions: Participants with vestibular disorders report a higher psychological burden compared to healthy adults. These results emphasize the importance of assessing psychological factors in persons with vestibular disorders. In addition, evidence was provided for convergent validity, supporting the VAAI as a valid outcome measure across cultures.

Case report: Can cochlear implant stimulation lead to improved balance even after vestibular neurectomy?

Introduction: In a previous manuscript from our research group, the concept of vestibular co-stimulation was investigated in adult subjects who received a cochlear implant (CI). Despite what literature reports state, no signs of vestibular co-stimulation could be observed. Results: In this case report, it was described how a woman, who previously underwent a neurectomy of the left vestibular nerve and suffers from bilateral vestibulopathy (BVP), reported improved balance whenever her CI on the left was stimulating. Unexpectedly, the sway analyses during posturography indeed showed a clinically relevant improvement when the CI was activated. Discussion: Vestibular co-stimulation as a side effect of CI stimulation could not be the explanation in this case due to the ipsilateral vestibular neurectomy. It is more likely that the results can be attributed to the electrically restored auditory input, which serves as an external reference for maintaining balance and spatial orientation. In addition, this patient experienced disturbing tinnitus whenever her CI was deactivated. It is thus plausible that the tinnitus increased her cognitive load, which was already increased because of the BVP, leading to an increased imbalance in the absence of CI stimulation.

Vestibular Co-stimulation in Adults with a Cochlear Implant.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular co-stimulation is a side effect of cochlear implant stimulation. The electrical currents delivered by the cochlear implant can spread toward the vestibular system and thus stimulate it. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether it is feasible to functionally restore the balance by modifying the vestibular co-stimulation. METHODS: Four adult patients, who had received a commercially available cochlear implant previously, were enrolled. Counterbalanced biphasic pulses were presented as bursts or as an amplitude-modulated biphasic pulse train (modulation frequencies ranging from 1 to 500 Hz) at the participant's upper comfortable level for electrical stimulation. Subjective sensations and vestibular-mediated eye movements were used for evaluating the possible effects of vestibular co-stimulation. RESULTS: One participant experienced a cyclic tilting of his head in response to an amplitude-modulated biphasic pulse train with a modulation frequency of 2 and 400 Hz. However, during a follow-up visit, the sensation could not be replicated. CONCLUSION: Subjective vestibular sensations or vestibular-mediated eye movements could not be electrically evoked with a commercially available cochlear implant in 4 adult patients with almost normal vestibular function. Therefore, customized design of the hard-, firm-, and/or software of the commercially available cochlear implant might be necessary in order to electrically restore vestibular performance.

The relationship between cochleovestibular function tests and endolymphatic hydrops grading on MRI in patients with Menière's disease.

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study the relationship between cochleovestibular function and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-) based classification system of endolymphatic hydrops was investigated. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with unilateral definite Menière's disease who underwent MRI were included. The parameters of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA), caloric irrigation test, cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, and video Head Impulse Test were compared between the grades of endolymphatic hydrops (EH) and perilymphatic enhancement (PE) on MRI. RESULTS: The low-frequency PTA was significantly different between cochlear EH grades I and II (p = 0.036; Grade I: mean (Standard Deviation, SD) = 51 decibel Hearing Level (dB HL) (18 dB HL); Grade II: mean (SD) = 60 dB HL (16 dB HL)), and vestibular EH grades 0 and III (p = 0.018; Grade 0: mean (SD) = 43 dB HL (21 dB HL); Grade III: mean = 60 dB HL (10 dB HL)). The ipsilateral caloric sum of ears with vestibular EH grade I (n = 6) was increased with regards to vestibular EH grades 0 (p = 0.001), II (p < 0.001), and III (p < 0.001) (Grade 0: mean (SD) = 24°/s (15°/s); Grade I: mean (SD) = 47°/s (11°/s); Grade II: mean (SD) = 21°/s (13°/s); Grade III: mean (SD) = 16°/s (8°/s)). CONCLUSION: According to these results we can conclude that only the highest grades of cochlear and vestibular EH seem to be associated with decreased cochleovestibular functioning.

The Sensitivity of the cVEMP Test in Detecting A Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence and the Influence of a Coexisting Incudal Lysis: A Case Report.

In this case report, the air-conducted cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (AC cVEMP) test was only sensitive for the left superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SCD), even though the contralateral SCD was of equal length (2.5 mm). Furthermore, a lysis of the processus lenticularis incudis caused a real conductive hearing loss in the left ear. A diminished left AC cVEMP was thus expected, but the opposite was shown (increased corrected amplitude, lowered detection threshold). The patient only experienced hearing loss, so middle ear surgery was performed to repair the lysis. The postoperative AC cVEMP showed a further "uncovering" of the SCD with increased corrected amplitude on the left but no vestibular symptoms. The significance of an SCD should be interpreted with caution, even when the AC cVEMP and the imaging are significant. Furthermore, AC cVEMPs should not be considered as evidence for the absence or presence of conductive hearing loss.

The Superiority of the Otolith System.

BACKGROUND: The peripheral vestibular end organ is considered to consist of semi-circular canals (SCC) for detection of angular accelerations and the otoliths for detection of linear accelerations. However, otoliths being phylogenetically the oldest part of the vestibular sensory organs are involved in detection of all motions. SUMMARY: This study elaborates on this property of the otolith organ, as this concept can be of importance for the currently designed vestibular implant devices. Key Message: The analysis of the evolution of the inner ear and examination of clinical examples shows the robustness of the otolith system and inhibition capacity of the SCC. The otolith system must be considered superior to the SCC system as illustrated by evolution, clinical evidence, and physical principles.

Electrical Vestibular Stimulation in Humans: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with bilateral vestibulopathy, the regular treatment options, such as medication, surgery, and/or vestibular rehabilitation, do not always suffice. Therefore, the focus in this field of vestibular research shifted to electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) and the development of a system capable of artificially restoring the vestibular function. Key Message: Currently, three approaches are being investigated: vestibular co-stimulation with a cochlear implant (CI), EVS with a vestibular implant (VI), and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). All three applications show promising results but due to conceptual differences and the experimental state, a consensus on which application is the most ideal for which type of patient is still missing. SUMMARY: Vestibular co-stimulation with a CI is based on "spread of excitation," which is a phenomenon that occurs when the currents from the CI spread to the surrounding structures and stimulate them. It has been shown that CI activation can indeed result in stimulation of the vestibular structures. Therefore, the question was raised whether vestibular co-stimulation can be functionally used in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. A more direct vestibular stimulation method can be accomplished by implantation and activation of a VI. The concept of the VI is based on the technology and principles of the CI. Different VI prototypes are currently being evaluated regarding feasibility and functionality. So far, all of them were capable of activating different types of vestibular reflexes. A third stimulation method is GVS, which requires the use of surface electrodes instead of an implanted electrode array. However, as the currents are sent through the skull from one mastoid to the other, GVS is rather unspecific. It should be mentioned though, that the reported spread of excitation in both CI and VI use also seems to induce a more unspecific stimulation. Although all three applications of EVS were shown to be effective, it has yet to be defined which option is more desirable based on applicability and efficiency. It is possible and even likely that there is a place for all three approaches, given the diversity of the patient population who serves to gain from such technologies.