Cochlear implantation in early deafened, late implanted adults: Do they benefit?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify the benefit gained from cochlear implantation in pre- or peri-lingually deafened patients who were implanted as adults Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study. Auditory (BKB/CUNY/3AFC/Environmental sounds), quality of life (GBI/HUI3) and cognitive (customized questionnaire) outcomes in 26 late implanted pre- or peri-lingually deafened adults were compared to those of 30 matched post-lingually deafened, traditional cochlear implant users. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in all scores in the study group following cochlear implantation. BKB scores for cases was 49.8% compared to 83.6% for controls (p=0.037). CUNY scores for cases was 61.7% compared to 90.3% for controls (p=0.022). The 3AFC and environmental sounds scores were also better in controls compared to cases but the difference was not statistically significant. Quality of life scores improved following implantation in cases and controls but the improvement was only statistically significant in the controls. There was a 7.7% non-user rate in the cases. There were no non-users in the control group. DISCUSSION: Early deafened,,late implanted patients can benefit audiologically from cochlear implantation and in this study the improvement in speech discrimination scores was greater than expected perhaps reflecting careful selection of patients. Nevertheless, audiological benefits are limited compared to traditional cochlear implant recipients with the implant acting as an aid to lip reading in most cases. CONCLUSION: With careful selection of candidates, cochlear implantation is beneficial in early deafened, late implanted patients.

Cochlear implantation in adolescents: Factors influencing compliance.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify rates of non- and partial-use of cochlear implants (CIs) in adolescent patients implanted in adolescence and childhood and identify factors influencing compliance. METHODS: A retrospective case note review undertaken at The Manchester Auditory Implant Centre. Adolescents were defined as young people aged 11-18 years. Individuals implanted in adolescence were defined as Group 1, individuals implanted in childhood under the age of 3 years and currently adolescents were defined as Group 2 and individuals implanted between the age of 3 and11 years and currently adolescents were defined as Group 3. Non-use was defined as not using the CI at all and partial use was defined as consistently using the CI less than full-time, or fluctuating periods of full and less than full-time use. RESULTS: In Group 1 there was 1 non-user (1.3%) and 11 partial-users (13.9%), with an overall non-compliance rate of 15.2%. In Group 2 there was one non-user (1.9%) and one partial-user (1.9%) with an overall non-compliance rate of 3.8%. In Group 3 there were no non-users and eight partial-users (9%), with an overall non-compliance rate of 9%. The factors influencing compliance differed between groups with the most common factor in Group 1 being a preference for the auditory input gained from the contralateral hearing aid (50%). In Groups 2 and 3 the main factors influencing compliance were behavioural and related to wearing the implant only at school (50 and 75%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients implanted during adolescence have higher rates of non- and partial-use compared with their adolescent counterparts who have been implanted during childhood. It is important to investigate factors influencing non-compliance so appropriate support may be provided to the patient and their family.

Hearing preservation cochlear implantation in adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes our experience of cochlear implantation (CI) with hearing preservation in adolescents. Our aim was to determine if hearing preservation is successful in this population, if the preserved hearing is maintained, and what the potential benefit of preserving hearing in this population is. PATIENTS: Fourteen profoundly deaf adolescents with preservation of low-frequency hearing (125, 250, and 500 Hz). INTERVENTION: Twelve adolescents had a single-sided CI, and two had bilateral CI. All were having their first implantation, and all patients had hearing preservation surgery (soft surgery). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing preservation was measured with preoperative and postoperative pure-tone audiograms. Speech audiometry was performed before implantation and at subsequent follow-up appointments. RESULTS: Hearing preservation (measurable hearing thresholds) was achieved in 13 of 14 patients. Average follow-up was 2 years 10 months (range, 4 mo-4 yr 9 mo). Three of 13 patients with initial successful hearing preservation had deterioration of their hearing at subsequent follow-up. The addition of naturally preserved hearing to the cochlear implant improved speech audiometry scores compared with using the implants in isolation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that residual hearing can be consistently preserved and maintained in adolescents during the short-/medium-term using a soft surgical technique to insert standard-length electrodes. The potential benefit of preserving residual low-frequency hearing seems to be improvement in speech discrimination in challenging hearing conditions, although larger studies are required.

Hearing preservation via a cochleostomy approach and deep insertion of a standard length cochlear implant electrode.

OBJECTIVE: The suggestion that the depth of insertion of the electrode into the cochlea is critical to hearing preservation has led to the development of a generation of short electrodes designed to minimize intracochlear trauma and avoid contact with the apical region of the cochlea. This study aims to describe our experience of hearing preservation surgery using a deeply inserted standard length electrode array covering the region of residual hearing. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case note review was performed identifying cases of attempted hearing preservation using standard length electrodes. SETTING: Study based at Manchester Royal Infirmary, a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Fourteen cochlear implants in 13 patients were identified for further analysis from the Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme database. INTERVENTION(S): Each patient received the same design of implant using a "soft" surgical technique. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Preoperative and postoperative air conduction thresholds were compared to assess the degree of hearing preservation. RESULTS: Successful hearing preservation was demonstrated in 12 of 14 cases, and the postoperative residual hearing thresholds in 3 adolescents receiving a standard length electrode array were found to have improved. Preservation of speech recognition was not measured in this study, rather hearing was tested by pure tone audiogram. Follow-up at the time of this study ranged from 1 week to 23 months. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that deep insertion of the electrode into the cochlea does not preclude successful hearing preservation. It also highlights that residual hearing can be consistently preserved using a "cochleostomy" approach.