Remote check test battery for cochlear implant recipients: proof of concept study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate the remote check test battery, designed for self-administration by cochlear implant (CI) recipients, parents/caregivers, to determine if the results give adequate information for clinicians to decide the necessity of an appointment and to capture suggestions for improvement. (2) To gauge acceptance of remote monitoring by CI-recipients and their parents/caregivers. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, un-blinded, non-randomized, single-subject, repeated-measures evaluation. The test battery includes an implant-site photograph, impedance measurements, datalogs, questionnaires, speech perception and aided threshold tests. Clinicians reviewed test battery results, followed by a clinical appointment with each CI-recipient, and reported if the battery identified all the issues. Study sample: n = 93 CI-recipients (73 adults, 20 children) and 28 clinicians. RESULTS: The test battery identified 94% (615/656) of all issues. The test battery and clinician observations agreed in 99% (92/93) of cases on the need for a clinic visit. For 68% (63/93) of cases, the test battery identified all clinician observed issues. The majority (77%, 72/93) of recipients would be satisfied if clinic visits were based on their test battery results. A significantly high proportion agreed that remote monitoring was more convenient than clinic visits and could result in travel, time and cost reductions. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive test battery designed for CI-recipient remote monitoring.

Long-term quality of life in children with complex needs undergoing cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES: An estimated 30-40% of children undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) have additional disabilities and traditional outcome measures are often not reliable or appropriate. Few studies have evaluated long-term quality of life (Qol) in this group. Our aim was to assess long term QoL of children implanted with complex needs against a cohort of children implanted without. We also compared both groups for secondary outcome measures such as parental opinion, complications and hours of device wear. METHODS: A retrospective casenote review of all children undergoing assessment between 2005 and 2010 was undertaken. Children with complex needs were identified using the Scottish Complex Needs Group Criteria (ISD 2006). Quality of life was measured using the GCBI (Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory) which is a validated questionnaire suitable for the retrospective assessment of health-related QoL following paediatric surgical interventions. It consists of a 200-point scale which ranges from -100 (maximal harm) to +100 (maximal benefit) and can be analysed in four QoL subdomains (health, vitality, physical, learning). Parents were also asked to complete a simple questionnaire asking if they would recommend CI to other families and whether they would wish their child to undergo CI if given the option again. RESULTS: 174 children were implanted and 17 (10%) were found to have complex needs. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 9 years. Total GCBI scores were similarly high between groups but significantly higher scores were found in the emotion (p = 0.05) and learning domains (p = 0.03) in the complex needs group. Linear regression analysis was used to show that total GCBI score was not influenced by the number of categories of impairment (R2 = 0.0123) in the complex needs group. All parents of children with complex needs said that they would proceed with implantation again or recommend to a friend. The complication rate in the complex needs group was higher (29 vs 15%), with device failure being particularly more common. Data-logging was consistent between both groups. A higher rate of development of significant other health issues that could affect outcome was found in the complex needs group (35% vs 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that children with complex needs have comparable long-term QoL scores to those without and seem to particularly benefit in the domains of learning and emotion. Complications are higher in this group and there remains an increased risk of further development of medical conditions following early implantation, which may influence progress.

Cochlear implantation and alcohol misuse.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of patients referred to our national centre for cochlear implantation who have a history of alcohol misuse. METHODS: A retrospective case-note review from 1989 - current was performed. Information was collected on aetiology/duration of deafness, current alcohol habits, and co-morbidities. For those implanted, we assessed implant type, anaesthetic, and complications. Our team rated each patients' engagement with the rehabilitation programme and collected 9-month post-implant Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) and 1-year post-implant categories of auditory performance (CAP) scores. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with a history of harmful drinking or alcohol dependency were identified. Aetiology of deafness was varied but most commonly included sensorineural hearing loss of unknown aetiology (7), neomycin ototoxicity (3), and head injury (2). Twelve were suitable for implantation and 11 have been successfully implanted. Three patients experienced a post-operative complication (one major/two minor). Most (eight) were rated as having good engagement with the rehabilitation process and three rated as average. Nine-month post-implant BKB scores ranged from 10 to 92 (mean 56). One-year post-implant CAP scores range from 4 to 8. CONCLUSION: Patients with a background of alcohol misuse are being increasingly referred to our service. Alcohol is often implicated in the aetiology of deafness or can be sequelae of the psychological issues sometimes experienced by deaf patients. Even in the case of active alcohol misuse at the time of implantation, all surviving patients are currently active users and our results show that these patients can do well following implantation with the right support.

Bilateral sequential cochlear implantation in the congenitally deaf child: evidence to support the concept of a 'critical age' after which the second ear is less likely to provide an adequate level of speech perception on its own.

This study attempts to answer the question of whether there is a 'critical age' after which a second contralateral cochlear implant is less likely to provide enough speech perception to be of practical use. The study was not designed to predict factors that determine successful binaural implant use, but to see if there was evidence to help determine the latest age at which the second ear can usefully be implanted, should the first side fail and become unusable.Outcome data, in the form of speech perception test results, were collected from 11 cochlear implant programmes in the UK and one centre in Australia. Forty-seven congenitally bilaterally deaf subjects who received bilateral sequential implants were recruited to the study. The study also included four subjects with congenital unilateral profound deafness who had lost all hearing in their only hearing ear and received a cochlear implant in their unilaterally congenitally deaf ear. Of those 34 subjects for whom complete sets of data were available, the majority (72%) of those receiving their second (or unilateral) implant up to the age of 13 years scored 60 per cent or above in the Bamford Kowal Bench (BKB) sentence test, or equivalent. In contrast, of those nine receiving their second or unilateral implant at the age of 15 or above, none achieved adequate levels of speech perception on formal testing: two scored 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, and the rest seven per cent or less.A discriminant function analysis performed on the data suggests that it is unlikely that a second contralateral implant received after the age of 16 to 18 years will, on its own, provide adequate levels of speech perception. As more children receive sequential bilateral cochlear implants and the pool of data enlarges the situation is likely to become clearer.The results provide support for the concept of a 'critical age' for implanting the second ear in successful congenitally deaf unilateral cochlear implant users. This would argue against 'preserving' the second ear beyond a certain age, in order to use newer models of cochlear implant or for the purpose of hair cell regeneration and similar procedures in the future. The results suggest a new and more absolute reason for bilateral implantation of congenitally deaf children at an early age.

Cochlear implantation in psoriasis patients.

Cochlear implantation has become a safe and effective method for the auditory rehabilitation of severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Flap problems are the commonest of the surgical complications [Axon PR, Mawman DJ, Upile T, Ramsden RT. Cochlear implantation in the presence of chronic suppurative otitis media. J Laryngol Otology 1997;111:228-32] and the risk increases further when associated with medical conditions predisposing to infection. We present two patients with psoriasis who underwent cochlear implant surgery, discussing the risk of surgical site infection and treatment options to minimise infection.

Cochlear implantation and management of chronic suppurative otitis media: single stage procedure?

In a series of 360 patients who underwent cochlear implantation at our center, four patients (five procedures) had cochlear implantation with obliteration of the mastoid cavity and management of cholesteatoma as a single-staged procedure. Three patients were bilaterally deaf secondary to CSOM and had bilateral mastoid cavities, and in one patient congenital cholesteatoma was identified during cochlear implantation. A mastoidectomy or revision mastoidectomy with obliteration of the mastoid cavity and cochlear implantation was performed as a single stage procedure. Cholesteatoma reoccurred in one patient 9 years after cochlear implantation. Surgical procedures, complications, follow-up and outcomes are discussed.

Short-term versus long-term antibiotic prophylaxis in cochlear implant surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study to evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis options for cochlear implant surgery. Does long-term antibiotic prophylaxis have any advantage over a single perioperative dose in preventing postoperative infection? STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective case review. PATIENTS: A total of 292 adult and pediatric patients who underwent cochlear implantation during a 15-year period (1988-2003) were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Minor and major postoperative wound infections in first 4 weeks. RESULTS: There were four major and eight minor complication among 292 patients (complication rate 4.1%). The infection rate was higher in patients who had either C incision (11.1%) or extended endaural incision (7.5%) and in patients with a preexisting medical condition. The infection rate was also higher in patients who had long-term antibiotics (5.6% and 13% in the 5-d and 7-d regimes) compared with short-term (single-dose) group. CONCLUSION: Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis did not have any advantage over single perioperative dose. Predisposing medical conditions and extensive surgical incisions were associated with a greater severity of infections and higher risk of wound complications.

Perfusion SPECT in cochlear implantation and promontory stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies of profoundly deaf patients with cochlear implants have demonstrated that these patients are able to process sound in the auditory cortex in a similar way to normal subjects. However, there are large variations in outcome. Various clinical criteria are used for subject selection and the decision as to which ear is to be implanted involves electrical stimulation of the promontory which is used to confirm the persistence of auditory neurones and fibres that can be utilized by the cochlear implant. In this study we have used SPECT with Tc-HMPAO to investigate activation of the auditory cortex in cochlear implantees post-surgery. In addition we also investigated whether electrical stimulation of the promontory does produce change in blood flow in the auditory cortex in pre-surgery candidates, which would indicate viable auditory networks that can be utilized by a cochlear implant device. METHODS AND RESULTS: Image analysis was performed with SPM99. Results of a simple subtraction paradigm indicated bilateral activation of auditory cortex and Wernicke's area in the post-implant group during auditory stimulus (speech) and bilateral activation of the ventral lateral posterior thalamus and bilateral auditory association cortex BA21/22/42, in the pre-implant group during electrical stimulus but no activation of the primary auditory cortex. A conjunction analysis used to investigate the common areas of activation across both groups during the stimulus condition showed that there was a common bilateral activation of the primary auditory cortex in both groups (BA22/41/42). In addition, analysis of a subset of the seven post-implant subjects who did not comprehend the speech in our study showed an activation (Pu<0.05, where Pu is the peak voxel threshold, uncorrected for multiple comparisons) in the left auditory cortex that extended into area BA22 synonymous with Wernicke's area. This supports the theory that this region has a sensory role.