Adult Auditory Brainstem Implant Outcomes and Three-Dimensional Electrode Array Position on Computed Tomography.

OBJECTIVES: Factors contributing to auditory brainstem implant (ABI) outcomes are poorly understood. The aims of this study are to (1) characterize ABI electrode array position on postoperative imaging and (2) determine if variability in position is related to perceptual outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects were selected from the adult ABI recipient population at Massachusetts Eye and Ear. Postoperative three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) reconstruction of the head was used to measure ABI array position in 20 adult ABI recipients (17 with Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2) and three non-NF2 recipients). Three-dimensional electrode array position was determined based on angles from the horizontal using posterior and lateral views and on distances between the proximal array tip superiorly from the basion (D1), laterally (D2P) and posteriorly (D2L) from the midline. Array position was correlated with perceptual data (in 15 of the 20 recipients who used their ABI). Perceptual data included the number of electrodes that provided auditory sensation, location and type of side effects, level of speech perception (from no sound to open-set word recognition of monosyllables) and the amount of charge required for auditory perception. RESULTS: Although the 3D orientation of the ABI array exhibited a variety of angles, all arrays were posteriorly tilted from the lateral view and most were medially tilted from the posterior view. ABI position relative to the basion from posterior showed mean distances of 1.71 ± 0.42 and 1.1 ± 0.29 cm for D1 and D2, respectively, and a mean D2 of 1.30 ± 0.45 cm from the lateral view. A strong linear negative correlation was found between the number of active electrodes and the distance of the proximal array tip laterally from the basion (D2P; rs = -0.73, p = 0.006) when measured in the posterior view. Although side effects were experienced in all recipients and varied in type and location across the array, electrodes in the middle part of the array tended to elicit auditory sensations while the proximal and distal tips of the array tended to elicit nonauditory side effects. Arrays with and without low charge thresholds appeared to generally overlap in position. However, the two recipients with the best (open-set) speech perception had low charge thresholds and had arrays that were tilted superiorly in the posterior view. CONCLUSION: ABI recipients with better speech perception appear to share a profile of arrays that are tilted superiorly as compared to recipients with lower speech perception levels. These ABI recipients have a high number of active electrodes (10 or more) and require less electrical charge on individual electrodes to achieve optimal stimulation.

From hearing with a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid (CI/HA) to hearing with two cochlear implants (CI/CI): a within-subject design comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare within-subject bilateral-binaural and bimodal complementary abilities between bimodal (cochlear implant and hearing aid; CI/HA) and bilateral CI hearing (CI/CI), thereby enabling better-informed counseling of experienced CI/HA users contemplating contralateral implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative within-subject case review. SETTING: Outpatient hearing clinic. PATIENTS: Ten experienced adult CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, who converted to CI/CI between 2 and 11 years after initial implantation. INTERVENTION: Task-specific testing of bilateral-binaural hearing (sound lateralization, binaural summation/redundancy/unmasking, head-shadow effect), bimodal complementary benefit (contribution of low-frequency information), and a self-report Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaire, all before and 1 year after contralateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test result differences between CI/HA and CI/CI conditions. RESULTS: CI/CI hearing was better than CI/HA for speech lateralization and for perception of semantically unpredictable sentences in speech noise with speech at 0 degrees and noise at +90 degrees azimuth on the old CI side. CI/HA was better than CI/CI only for differences between perception of natural prosody speech and of speech with flattened fundamental frequency (F0) contour with speech and noise in front (at 0 degrees azimuth). Total scores on the SSQ questionnaire were higher in CI/CI than in CI/HA users. CONCLUSION: Counseling regarding contralateral implantation for CI/HA users with severe-to-profound hearing loss in the HA ear, though generally positive, should consider individual functional needs, and cover expectations about the expected trade-off between gaining improved understanding and speech lateralization in challenging listening conditions and losing some low-frequency cues still available with CI/HA hearing.