Feasibility of TMS in patients with new generation cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: The presence of a cochlear implant is being considered an absolute contraindication for experiments and/or treatments. We aimed to verify TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) compatibility of a new generation of cochlear implants. METHODS: In a series of experiments, we test if MED-EL cochlear implants -compatible with stable fields of magnetic resonance imaging scanning- are fully resistant even to rapidly varying magnetic fields as those generated by single pulses and low and high-frequency trains of repetitive TMS (rTMS) applied with a figure of eight coil and different magnetic stimulators. RESULTS: With a TMS intensity equal or below 2.2 Tesla (T) the cochlear implant and all its electronic components remain fully functional, even when the combination of frequency, intensity and number of pulses exceeds the currently available safety guidelines. Induced forces on the implant are negligible. With higher magnetic fields (i.e., 3.2 T), one device was corrupted. CONCLUSIONS: Results exclude the risk of electronic damaging, demagnetizing or displacements of the studied cochlear implants when exposed to magnetic fields of up to 2.2 T delivered through a focal coil. SIGNIFICANCE: They open the way to use focal rTMS protocols with the aim of promoting neural plasticity in auditory networks, possibly helping the post-implant recovery of speech perception performance.

Cochlear implantation in children with white matter lesions: Prediction of hearing outcomes by multiple regression analysis.

ABSTRACT: Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) white matter lesions have been reported in some preoperative cochlear implant children. However, the role of white matter lesions in predicting the hearing outcome is yet unclear. The present study investigated the outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) in 40 children with white matter lesions.The data from children with white matter lesions were reviewed in this retrospective study. Based on brain MRI, the patients were divided into 3 groups: mild, moderate, and severe. The children were treated with unilateral CI and monitored for a follow-up period of at least 3 years. The main outcome measures were category of auditory performance (CAP) and speech intelligibility rating (SIR). MRI white matter lesions, age at implant, gender, physical impairment, and cognitive impairment were obtained from a research database to assess the correlation with long-term CAP and SIR outcome by multiple regression analysis.The data of children with white matter lesions were reviewed (18 females and 23 males). The mean age at implantation was 31.6 months. Strikingly, all children obtained better CAP and SIR scores. The age at implantation, brain white matters lesions on MRI, and cognitive and physical disabilities were associated with CAP and SIR scores. Multiple regression established a weak correlation between the degree of white matter lesions on brain MRI and long-term CAP and SIR, while cognitive impairment strongly accounted for long-term CAP and SIR outcome.The majority of the children with brain white matter lesions obtained a satisfactory postoperative effect. The cognitive impairment before CI is a major factor, and such factor should be considered.

Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants. RESULTS: We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, P < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, P < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; P < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.

Voice fundamental frequency differences and speech recognition with noise and speech maskers in cochlear implant recipients.

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients are limited in their perception of voice cues, such as the fundamental frequency (F0). This has important consequences for speech recognition when several talkers speak simultaneously. This examination considered the comparison of clear speech and noise-vocoded sentences as maskers. For the speech maskers it could be shown that good CI performers are able to benefit from F0 differences between target and masker. This was due to the fact that a F0 difference of 80 Hz significantly reduced target-masker confusions, an effect that was slightly more pronounced in bimodal than in bilateral users.

Auditory comprehension outcomes in children who receive a cochlear implant before 12 months of age.

OBJECTIVE: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for cochlear implantation (CI) include age greater than 12 months. Studies have suggested that implantation in children younger than 12 months with congenital deafness may be associated with better spoken language outcomes. Compare auditory comprehension (AC) outcomes for children with congenital deafness who received CI less than 12 months of age to those implanted at 12 to 24 months of age. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data in consecutively implanted patients under 2 years of age who received CI and had post-CI Preschool Language Scale (PLS)-AC scores. Receptive language was assessed with the AC subtest of the PLS. Patients without pre-CI PLS-AC scores were excluded. The association between age at implantation and post-CI PLS-AC scores up to 2 years after CI surgery was modeled using a linear mixed-effects model. Time from CI surgery, number of implants, risk factors for language delay, pre-CI PLS-AC score, and sex were included in the model. Patients implanted less than 12 months of age were compared to those implanted between 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients who had CI surgery by 12 months and 82 who had CI surgery between 12 and 24 months were included in the analysis. Younger age at implantation and better pre-CI PLS-AC scores were significantly associated with better post-CI PLS-AC scores. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation in children with congenital deafness less than 12 months of age was associated with better PLS-AC than in children implanted over 12 months of age up to 2 years after implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:776-781, 2020.

Identifying Disadvantaged Groups for Cochlear Implantation: Demographics from a Large Cochlear Implant Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify demographic predictors of patients undergoing cochlear implantation evaluation and surgery. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients between 2009 and 2018 who underwent cochlear implantation evaluation at a university cochlear implantation program were retrospectively identified to determine (1) cochlear implantation qualification rate and (2) pursuit of surgery rate with respect to age, gender, race, primary spoken language, marital status, insurance type, and distance to the cochlear implantation center. RESULTS: A total of 823 cochlear implantation evaluations were analyzed. Overall, 76.3% of patients qualified for cochlear implantation and 61.5% of these patients pursued surgery. Age was the only independent predictor for cochlear implantation qualification, such that, for each year younger, the odds of qualifying for cochlear implantation increased by 2.5% (OR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). Age, race, marital status, and insurance type were each independent predictors of the decision to pursue surgery. The odds of pursuing surgery increased by 2.8% for each year younger (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05). Compared to White patients, non-Whites were half as likely to pursue surgery (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.88). Single (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26-0.94) and widowed patients (OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23-0.95) were about half as likely to pursue surgery as compared to married patients. Patients with military insurance were 13 times more likely to pursue surgery as compared to patients with Medicare (OR 13.0; 95% CI: 1.67-101.4). CONCLUSION: Younger age is an independent predictor for a higher cochlear implantation qualification rate, suggesting the possibility for delayed candidacy referral. Rate of surgical pursuit in qualified cochlear implantation candidates is lower for racial minorities, single and widowed patients, and older patients.

Use of intraoperative CT scanning for quality control assessment of cochlear implant electrode array placement.

Background: Imaging of cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays (EAs) consists of intraoperative fluoroscopy to rule out tip fold-over and/or post-operative computerized tomography (CT) if concern exists regarding extrusion or misplacement of the EA. Intraoperative CT (iCT) can satisfy these current needs and enables specification of final intracochlear position.Aims/objectives: To describe iCT scanning of CI recipients at an academic medical center.Materials and methods: iCT was used to scan CI recipients within the operating room before recovering from general anesthesia.Results: In fiscal year 2019, 301 CI were placed (83 children, 218 adult). One hundred, seventy-five iCTs were performed (58% of total CIs) of which 52 were children (63% of pediatric CIs) and 123 were adult (57% of adult CIs). Of 7 CI surgeons, use of iCT ranged from 14% to 100% (mean 60%). Four tip fold-overs were identified and corrected intraoperatively. Surgeons reported using the images to improve technique (i.e. pulling back precurved EAs to improve perimodiolar positioning).Conclusion and significance: The current standard of care for CI is to insert EAs without feedback as to final location. iCT provides surgeons with rapid post-insertion feedback which allows detection and correction of suboptimally placed EAs as well as refinement of surgical technique.

Current indications for cochlear implantation in adults and children.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of deafness by cochlear implants is used for more than 40 years, and during this period permanently, gradual and significant expansion of indications for this surgery has been observed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In our Department in the years 1994-2018 1480 cochlear implantations were performed, both in adults (647) and in children (883). In this study current indications and the rules for eligibility of patients based on 25 years of experience are presented. RESULTS: Indications for cochlear implantation in adults are: 1) bilateral postlingual deafness, 2) bilateral sensorineural hearing loss - in pure tone audiometry > 70 dB HL (average 500-4000 Hz) and in speech audiometry in hearing aids understanding < 50% of words for the intensity of the stimulus 65 dB, in the absence of the benefits of hearing aids, 3) bilateral profound hearing loss for high frequency with good hearing for low frequency, in the absence of the benefits of hearing aids, 4) some cases of asymmetric hearing loss with intensive tinnitus in the deaf ear. An indication in children is bilateral sensorineural hearing loss > 80dB HL confirmed by hearing tests, after about 6 months of rehabilitation with the use of hearing aids. DISCUSSION: Although cochlear implantation is used for more than 40 years, the indications for this treatment underlies constant modifications. They concern the age of eligible patients, implantation in patients with partially preserved hearing, as well as treatment for patients with difficult anatomical conditions. In many countries, bilateral implantations are commonly performed, and more and more centers recommend this treatment in the case of unilateral deafness or asymmetric hearing loss, especially with the accompanying tinnitus in the deaf ear.

French Society of ENT (SFORL) guidelines. Indications for cochlear implantation in adults.

The authors present the guidelines of the French Society of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery (SFORL) regarding indications for cochlear implantation in adults. After a literature review by a multidisciplinary workgroup, guidelines were drawn up based on retrieved articles and group-members' experience, then read over by an independent reading group to edit the final version. Guidelines were graded A, B, C or "expert opinion" according to decreasing level of evidence. There is no upper age limit to cochlear implantation in the absence of proven dementia and if autonomy is at least partial. Bilateral implantation may be proposed if unilateral implantation fails to provide sufficiently good spatial localization, speech perception in noise and quality of life, and should be preceded by binaural hearing assessment. Rehabilitation by acoustic and electrical stimulation may be proposed when low-frequency hearing persists. Quality of life should be assessed before and after implantation.

Don't look at it as a miracle cure: Contested notions of success and failure in family narratives of pediatric cochlear implantation.

Cochlear implants (CIs) are a routine treatment for children identified with a qualifying hearing loss. The CI, however, must be accompanied by a long-term and intense auditory training regimen in order to possibly acquire spoken language with the device. This research investigates families' experiences when they opted for the CI and undertook the task of auditory training, but the child failed to achieve what might be clinically considered "success" - the ability to function solely using spoken language. Using a science and technology studies informed approach that places the CI within a complex sociotechnical system, this research shows the uncertain trajectory of the CI, as well as the contingency of the very notions of success and failure. To do so, data from in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of parents (n = 11) were collected. Results show the shifting definitions of failure and success within families, as well as suggest areas for further exploration regarding clinical practice and pediatric CIs. First, professionals' messaging often conveyed to parents a belief in the infallibility of the CI, this potentially caused "soft failure" to go undetected and unmitigated. Second, speech assessments used in clinical measurements of outcomes did not capture a holistic understanding of a child's identity and social integration, leaving out an important component for consideration of what a 'good outcome' is. Third, minority parents experience structural racism and clinical attitudes that may render "failure" more likely to be identified and expected in these children, an individualizing process that allows structural failures to go uncritiqued.

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss.

OBJECTIVES: To report on a retrospective cohort study on the effects of expanding inclusion criteria for application of cochlear implants (CIs) on the performance 1-year post-implantation. METHODS: Based on pre-implantation audiometric thresholds and aided speech recognition scores, the data of 164 CI recipients were divided into a group of patients that fulfilled conservative criteria (mean hearing loss at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz > 85 dB HL and phoneme scores with hearing aids < 30%), and the remaining group of patients that felt outside this conservative criterion. Speech recognition scores (in quiet) and quality of life (using the NCIQ) of both groups, measured at 1-year post-implantation, were compared. RESULTS: The group that felt outside the conservative criterion showed a higher phoneme score at 1-year post-implantation compared to the conservative group, suggesting that relaxed criteria have a positive influence on the speech recognition results with CI. With respect to quality of life, both groups significantly improved 1-year post-implantation. The conservative group showed a higher benefit on the advanced perception domain of the NCIQ. Based on their worse pre-implantation hearing, this was expected. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that relaxation of CI indication positively affects the speech recognition performance of patients with severe hearing loss. Both groups of patients showed a positive effect of CI on the quality of life. This benefit relates to communication skills and the subjective day-to-day functioning in society.

Evidence-Based Recommendation for Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults.

Purpose Most adult cochlear implant (CI) users in developed countries benefit from the use of a hearing aid in conjunction with their implant device (bimodal hearing). Benefits have also been documented for the use of bilateral CIs for speech perception in quiet, localization, and speech perception in noise. This study attempted to quantify speech perception results for bimodal and bilateral CIs in adults and provide a guide for those considering a 2nd CI. Method Speech perception outcomes were reviewed for 1,394 adults with acquired hearing loss who received a CI at the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic between 2000 and 2015. Results Bimodal and bilateral users significantly outperformed unilateral CI users on consonant-vowel-consonant word recognition in quiet. For the bilateral group, word recognition scores with the 1st CI were predictive of 2nd CI word scores. The analysis suggested that bimodal users who were gaining less than 19% benefit from the nonimplanted ear were likely to perform better with a 2nd implant. Conclusions CI users who score less than 19% on consonant-vowel-consonant words in the nonimplanted ear have a good chance of benefiting from a 2nd implant. Consideration of many other factors including age, hearing goals, medical factors, and the risk to residual hearing also needs to play a part in recommending a 2nd CI.

Brazilian scale of hearing and language development: normality curve for infants and children from 0 to 24 months old with normal hearing

Introduction: Cochlear implants are currently the most effective technological resource to facilitate access to the hearing world for deaf people. Their use, especially when implanted early in children, reduces the impact of deafness on hearing as well as on the development of spoken language. Objective: To validate the first part of the Brazilian Scale of Hearing and Language Development (EDAL-1, in the Portuguese acronym) and to establish the normal curve in infants and children aged between 0 and 24 months old with normal hearing. Method: This is an experimental study of a descriptive nature, conducted with 92 infants and children with normal hearing. Every infant/child was evaluated audiologically, and the EDAL-1 was applied to their parents. The responses were categorized by applying the EDAL-1 every 3 months for each child. Results: The EDAL-1 was shown to be easily applied by the researcher and easily understood by the parents. It was possible to classify the sample every 3 months and describe the results. The average of the responses found in terms of scores for each age category shows an increasing scale following the evolution of the chronological age: 3 months-34.23 points; 6 months-54.68 points; 9 months-73 points; 12 months- 82.5 points; 15 months-87 points; 18 months-91 points; 21 months-92.5 points, and 24 months-95.83 points. Conclusion: The normal curve for EDAL-1 was successfully established. The averages can be considered as the standard protocol for normality, serving as a reference for comparison with other populations (AU)

Cochlear Implant Practice Patterns: The U.S. Trends with Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Many factors affect an individual's outcomes with a cochlear implant (CI); however, quality of device programming and consistency of follow-up appointments have been shown to be crucial contributors. As audiologists' CI caseloads increase, time constraints on appointments also increase, thus fueling the need for efficient and effective programming strategies. Currently, there are no standardized guidelines describing what methods should be used during programming, nor are there standardized schedules that delineate what procedures should be performed at specific appointment intervals. Without standardized programming guidelines, clinical practices may be variable and may not align with best practice research; thus, outcomes with a CI, particularly for pediatrics, may not be reflective of the actual potential available. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical practice patterns used by U.S. audiologists when programming and providing follow-up care to children who use CIs. This study aimed to determine the following: common programming approaches, provision intervals for these procedures, common validation assessments, typical follow-up care schedules, and source(s) of CI training. In addition, this study sought to evaluate if training and/or follow-up care differed between small and large CI centers. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was used. STUDY SAMPLE: Target population included practicing audiologists working with pediatric CI users throughout the United States. Participation was voluntary, thus random selection could not be used. A total of 167 participants opened and began the online survey and 113 successfully completed the survey instrument (23.99% return rate). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Potential participants were identified using the "find a clinic" function on three CI manufacturers' websites. Potential participants were asked to complete an online survey seeking information about practices they employ in their clinical setting. Survey responses were analyzed for trends. RESULTS: Overall, a common follow-up schedule was determined, which included an average of 6.8 appointments within the first year. Minor differences in training and programming practices between small and large CI centers emerged; however, no statistically significant results were noted. Results did reveal trends in the use of certain clinical practices. This was particularly evident in the limited use of objective measures. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings support other recent studies that suggest the development of CI guidelines that may standardize programming and follow-up practices of CI audiologists. This could prove valuable for the continual improvement of CI outcomes, particularly in the pediatric population.

Should patients with brain implants undergo MRI?

Patients suffering from neuronal degenerative diseases are increasingly being equipped with neural implants to treat symptoms or restore functions and increase their quality of life. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would be the modality of choice for the diagnosis and compulsory postoperative monitoring of such patients. However, interactions between the magnetic resonance (MR) environment and implants pose severe health risks to the patient. Nevertheless, neural implant recipients regularly undergo MRI examinations, and adverse events are rarely reported. However, this should not imply that the procedures are safe. More than 300 000 cochlear implant recipients are excluded from MRI, unless the indication outweighs the excruciating pain. For 75 000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) recipients quite the opposite holds true: MRI is considered an essential part of the implantation procedure and some medical centres deliberately exceed safety regulations, which they refer to as crucially impractical. Permanent MRI-related neurological dysfunctions in DBS recipients have occurred in the past when manufacturer recommendations were exceeded. Within the last few decades, extensive effort has been invested to identify, characterise and quantify the occurring interactions. Yet today we are still far from a satisfying solution concerning a safe and beneficial MR procedure for all implant recipients. To contribute, we intend to raise awareness of the growing concern, summon the community to stop absurdities and instead improve the situation for the increasing number of patients. Therefore, we review implant safety in the MRI literature from an engineering point of view, with a focus on cochlear and DBS implants as success stories of neural implants in clinical practice. We briefly explain fundamental phenomena which can lead to patient harm, and point out breakthroughs and errors made. Then, we end with conclusions and strategies to avoid future implants from being contraindicated in MR examinations. We believe that implant recipients should enter MRI, but before doing so, it should be made sure that the procedure is reasonable.

Hearing preservation cochlear implantation in children: The HEARRING Group consensus and practice guide.

OBJECTIVES: To provide multidisciplinary cochlear implant teams with a current consensus statement to support hearing preservation cochlear implantation (HPCI) in children, including those children with symptomatic partial deafness (PD) where the intention is to use electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). The main objectives are to provide guidelines on who is a candidate, how to assess these children and when to implant if Med-El Flex electrode arrays are chosen for implantation. METHODS: The HEARRING group reviewed the current evidence and practice regarding the management of children to be considered for HPCI surgery emphasizing the assessment needed prior to implantation in order to demonstrate the benefits in these children over time. The consensus statement addresses following three key questions: (1) Should these children be treated? (2) How to identify these children? (3) How to manage these children? SUMMARY: The HEARRING group concludes that irrespective of the degree of residual hearing present, the concepts of hearing and structure preservation should be applied in every child undergoing cochlear implantation and that HPCI is a safe and reliable treatment option. Early detection and multidisciplinary assessment are key to the identification of children with symptomatic PD, these children should undergo HPCI as early as possible.

Independent component analysis for cochlear implant artifacts attenuation from electrically evoked auditory steady-state response measurements.

OBJECTIVE: Electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses (EASSRs) are potentially useful for objective cochlear implant (CI) fitting and follow-up of the auditory maturation in infants and children with a CI. EASSRs are recorded in the electro-encephalogram (EEG) in response to electrical stimulation with continuous pulse trains, and are distorted by significant CI artifacts related to this electrical stimulation. The aim of this study is to evaluate a CI artifacts attenuation method based on independent component analysis (ICA) for three EASSR datasets. APPROACH: ICA has often been used to remove CI artifacts from the EEG to record transient auditory responses, such as cortical evoked auditory potentials. Independent components (ICs) corresponding to CI artifacts are then often manually identified. In this study, an ICA based CI artifacts attenuation method was developed and evaluated for EASSR measurements with varying CI artifacts and EASSR characteristics. Artifactual ICs were automatically identified based on their spectrum. MAIN RESULTS: For 40 Hz amplitude modulation (AM) stimulation at comfort level, in high SNR recordings, ICA succeeded in removing CI artifacts from all recording channels, without distorting the EASSR. For lower SNR recordings, with 40 Hz AM stimulation at lower levels, or 90 Hz AM stimulation, ICA either distorted the EASSR or could not remove all CI artifacts in most subjects, except for two of the seven subjects tested with low level 40 Hz AM stimulation. Noise levels were reduced after ICA was applied, and up to 29 ICs were rejected, suggesting poor ICA separation quality. SIGNIFICANCE: We hypothesize that ICA is capable of separating CI artifacts and EASSR in case the contralateral hemisphere is EASSR dominated. For small EASSRs or large CI artifact amplitudes, ICA separation quality is insufficient to ensure complete CI artifacts attenuation without EASSR distortion.