Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To investigate a new surgical and signal processing technique that provides apical stimulation of the cochlea using a cochlear implant without extending the length of the electrode array. PATIENTS/METHODS:Three adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation using this new technique. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:The patients received a cochlear implant. The surgery differed from the standard approach in that a ground electrode was placed in the cochlear helicotrema via an apical cochleostomy rather than in its typical location underneath the temporalis muscle. Clinical fitting was modified such that low frequencies were represented using the apically placed electrode as a ground. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Pitch scaling and speech recognition. RESULTS:All surgeries were successful with no complications. Pitch scaling demonstrated that use of the apically placed electrode as a ground lowered the perceived pitch of electric stimulation relative to monopolar stimulation. Speech understanding was improved compared with preoperative scores. CONCLUSIONS:The new surgical approach and clinical fitting are feasible. A lower pitch is perceived when using the apically placed electrode as a ground relative to stimulation using an extracochlear ground (i.e., monopolar mode), suggesting that stimulation can be provided more apically without the use of a longer electrode array. Further work is required to determine potential improvements in outcomes and optimal signal processing for the new approach.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our institutional experience with cochlear implantation (CI) for rehabilitation of hearing loss in Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review between 1989 and 2019. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Twenty-four patients (67% female, mean age 45.6years) with NF2. Management of their ipsilateral vestibular schwannoma included microsurgery (n=12), stereotactic radiation (n=5), and observation (n=7). INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Ability to obtain open-set speech, daily device usage and long-term device benefit. RESULTS:All patients achieved some degree of sound awareness with CI. Nineteen patients (79%) achieved open-set speech understanding with a mean word-recognition score of 43% (range 0-88%). Patients with tumors 1.5 cm or less demonstrated the better speech understanding, without significant differences among treatment modalities. For tumors greater than 1.5 cm, patients who underwent microsurgery had a lower rate of open-set speech understanding compared to those treated with radiation or observation. Regular daily device use in 83% of patients was found. Long-term use (>10years) was observed in several patients, though some ultimately required reimplantation with an auditory brainstem implant due to progressive tumor growth. Mean follow-up duration was 4.1 years (range 0.4-15). CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation can be an effective treatment for hearing loss in NF2 patients provided the cochlear nerve is intact, regardless of prior management for the ipsilateral tumor. The degree of benefit varies and is influenced by tumor size. Management strategies that preserve the cochlear nerve maximize the interval during which a CI could be of benefit to NF2 patients.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our experience with adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) for treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective case review. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Fifty-three adults with SSD. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Unilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Speech perception testing in quiet and noise, tinnitus suppression, and device usage from datalogs. RESULTS:The mean age at CI was 53.2 years (SD 11.9). The mean duration of deafness was 4.0 years (SD 7.8). The most common etiology was idiopathic sudden SNHL (50%). Word recognition improved from 8.7% (SD 15) preoperatively to 61.8% (SD 20) at a mean follow-up of 3.3 years (SD 1.8) (p < 0.0001). Adaptive speech recognition testing in the "binaural with CI" condition (speech directed toward the front and noise toward the normal hearing ear) revealed a significant improvement by 2.6-dB SNR compared to the preoperative unaided condition (p = 0.0002) and by 3.6-dB SNR compared to when a device to route sound to the contralateral side was used (p < 0.0001). Tinnitus suppression was reported to be complete in 23 patients (43%) and improved in 20 patients (38%) while the device was on. The addition of the CI did not lead to a decrement in hearing performance in any spatial configuration. Device usage averaged 8.7 (SD 3.7) hours/day. CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation in adult SSD patients can suppress tinnitus and achieve speech perception outcomes comparable with CI in conventional candidates. Modest improvements in spatial hearing were also observed and primarily attributable to the head shadow effect. Careful patient selection and counseling regarding potential benefits are important to optimize outcomes.

The reasons why clinical outcomes with auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) are generally poorer than with cochlear implants (CIs) are still somewhat elusive. Prior work has focused on differences in processing of spectral information due to possibly poorer tonotopic representation and higher channel interaction with ABIs than with CIs. In contrast, this study examines the hypothesis that a potential contributing reason for poor speech perception in ABI users may be the relative lack of temporal responsiveness of the primary neurons that are stimulated by the ABI. The cochlear nucleus, the site of ABI stimulation, consists of different neuron types, most of which have much more complex responses than the auditory nerve neurons stimulated by a CI. Temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons was assessed in a group of ABI and CI users by measuring recovery of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from single-pulse forward masking. Slower ECAP recovery tended to be associated with poorer hearing outcomes in both groups. ABI subjects with the longest recovery time had no speech understanding or even no hearing sensation with their ABI device; speech perception for the one CI outlier with long ECAP recovery time was well below average. To the extent that ECAP recovery measures reveal temporal properties of the primary neurons that receive direct stimulation form neural prosthesis devices, they may provide a physiological underpinning for clinical outcomes of auditory implants. ECAP recovery measures may be used to determine which portions of the cochlear nucleus to stimulate, and possibly allow us to enhance the stimulation paradigms.

OBJECTIVE:To describe our experience with children undergoing unilateral cochlear implantation (CI) for treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective case series. METHODS:A retrospective case review from a tertiary referral center involving 14 pediatric patients (<18 years) with SSD who underwent unilateral CI. Speech perception testing in quiet and noise in the CI-only and bimodal conditions with at least 1 year of device use and device usage from data logs represent the main outcome measures. RESULTS:The mean age at CI was 5.0 years (median 4.4, range 1.0-11.8 years). The mean duration of deafness was 3.0 years (median 2.4, range 0.6-7.0 years). Mean follow-up was 3.4 years. Speech perception testing with a minimum of 1 year post-CI was available in eight patients. The mean word recognition scores (WRS) in the CI-only condition was 56%; a significant improvement from baseline. Testing in background noise with spatially separated speech and noise revealed that patients scored as well or better with the CI-on versus CI-off in all conditions and in no cases was interference from the CI noted. Data logs were reviewed for device usage which revealed an average use of 6.5 hr/d. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implantation is a viable treatment option for pediatric SSD in this self-selected cohort. Open-set speech and improvement in background noise can be achieved. Careful patient selection and thorough counseling on expectations is paramount to achieving successful outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV Laryngoscope, 2020.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the performance changes after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in a pediatric population of bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. To evaluate the factors which influence the parental and recipient decision to discontinue hearing aid use and seek a second implant. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective case review, within-subject comparison. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Thirty-one pediatric (<18 yr) bimodal CI users who underwent sequential bilateral CI. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Sequential bilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Parental and/or recipient's reasons for discontinuing their hearing aid and pursuing a second implant, device usage from datalogs, speech understanding in the bimodal and bilateral CI condition. RESULTS:Parents/patients were motivated to pursue sequential bilateral CI based on their positive performance with CI1, the expectation of further improvement with a second CI, and the prospect of having a second independently functional ear. In the bimodal condition, mean word recognition score (WRS), sentence recognition in quiet (SIQ), and sentence recognition in noise (SIN) scores were 87.4, 97.3, and 92.9% respectively. At 1-year post-sequential bilateral CI, the mean WRS, SIQ, and SIN score were 92.7, 98.7, and 97.7%, respectively. The improvement in bilateral CI speech scores compared with bimodal scores was statistically significant for WRS (p = 0.015). A ceiling effect limited the ability to detect further meaningful differences on speech perception testing. CONCLUSIONS:The bilateral CI condition demonstrates equivalent or slightly superior performance compared with the bimodal condition. Several non-speech benefits were elicited from parents as reasons for pursuing a second implant. Close monitoring of the residual acoustic hearing, inquiring about the perceived benefits provided by the HA, and early counseling regarding the potential for sequential bilateral CI are important aspects in determining if and when a second implant is indicated.

Objective: To describe cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes for rehabilitation of hearing loss due to retrocochlear pathology and/or its treatment.
Method(s): Retrospective review between 1995 and 2019 from a single tertiary care center of all patients with retrocochlear pathology who underwent CI. Demographics, clinical history, and audiometric data were reviewed. Study endpoints include (1) logged device use, (2) ability to achieve auditory perception, and (3) word recognition score (WRS) in the CI-only condition.
Result(s): Thirty-two patients (63% of females) with retrocochlear pathology were implanted at our center. The average age at implantation was 46.9 years (SD: 19, range: 13-80). Mean duration of deafness was 4.5 years (SD: 5.0, range: 0.4-19.0). Etiology of hearing loss included VS in 24 (75%), CNS malignancy treated with radiation in 4 (13%), intralabyrinthine schwannoma in 2 (6%), head and neck malignancy treated with radiation in 1 (3%), and superficial siderosis in 1 (3%). The mean preoperative PTA was 95.8 dBHL (SD 24.7) and WRS was 7.2% (SD 13.1). Of the 24 VSs, 21 were NF2-associated and 3 were sporadic. The mean tumor size was 1.64 cm (SD: 0.6, range: 0.5-2.6 cm). At the time of CI, 11 patients had prior microsurgery, 6 patients had prior radiation to the ipsilateral tumor, and 7 patients had stable tumors without prior surgery or radiation. Device use was classified as regular (>7 hours/day) in 15 (47%), limited (<7 hours/day) in 12 (38%), and nonuse is 5 (16%). The audiometric outcomes of 26 patients are reported, as the other 6 patients have been implanted too recently for review. Auditory perception was achieved in 24/26 patients. The two patients who failed to achieve auditory perception underwent prior surgery. Open-set speech recognition (WRS > 20%) was achieved in 18 patients. Meaningful sound perception but without significant open-set speech (WRS < 20%) was seen in six patients. Altogether, the mean WRS at most recent follow-up (mean: 3.4 years, SD: 1.8) for the observation, microsurgery, and radiation cohorts was 51% (SD: 15), 36% (SD: 28), and 39% (SD: 26), respectively. Over long-term follow-up, two patients experienced decline in CI performance associated with tumor regrowth and necessitated additional surgery; both underwent explantation of the CI and successful auditory brainstem implantation. The remaining patients have demonstrated durable benefit. A multivariate analysis is presented to evaluate the effects of the following variables: duration of deafness, time interval between treatment and CI, diagnosis of NF2, treatment cohort, pathology, and status of hearing in the contralateral ear.
Conclusion(s): In appropriately selected patients, cochlear implantation is feasible for the rehabilitation of hearing loss due to retrocochlear pathology and/or its treatment. Given the heterogeneity inherent to this population, outcomes are variable. In most cases, auditory percept was achieved and over half of the patients obtained open-set speech perception, irrespective of prior management and treatment

OBJECTIVE:To assess auditory brainstem implant (ABI) outcomes in children with a prospective study. METHODS:Twelve patients with cochlear nerve deficiency received an auditory brainstem implant. Patients were evaluated with age appropriate speech perception and production assessments, and health related quality of life (HRQoL) surveys for parents of subjects and for subjects if age appropriate. RESULTS:Twelve patients received an ABI without major complications. Eleven out of twelve received some auditory benefit from their ABI. Parental HRQoL ratings were positive for all domains with the exception of communication. Self reported overall HRQoL metrics from two subjects were also positive. CONCLUSIONS:ABI is a good option for patients who are not eligible for or fail CI. Our findings show that despite varying degrees of postoperative performance, HRQoL ratings were positive. The presence of additional disabilities and health problems resulted in less positive HRQoL outcomes. Our results emphasize the need to assess outcomes in these patients beyond speech perception and communication.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare the diagnostic performance of the Hum Test against the Weber Test using pure tone audiometry (PTA) as the "gold standard" comparator. METHODS:29 participants with normal hearing of ages 18 to 35 without any history of hearing abnormalities or otologic conditions were enrolled. Subjects underwent three tests (Hum Test, Weber Test, and PTA) across two conditions: with an ear plug in one ear (side randomized) and without ear plugs. RESULTS:When examining the ability of the Hum Test to detect simulated conductive hearing loss (CHL), the test had a sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 100% with high pitched humming and 93.1% and 100%, respectively, with low pitched humming. The Weber Test had a sensitivity and specificity of 96.6% and 100%, respectively. McNemar's test demonstrated agreement between the Hum Test, performed with either high pitched ( P = .32) or low pitched ( P = .56) humming, and the Weber Test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the Hum Test (both high and low pitched) and Weber test were compared and demonstrated no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The Hum Test is comparable to the Weber Test with regards to its sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in assessing new onset unilateral CHL in previously normal hearing subjects.

OBJECTIVE:To assess bimodal auditory performance in children with a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral auditory brainstem implant (ABI). METHODS:This is a retrospective case review performed at a tertiary referral center. Four patients with cochlear nerve deficiency initially underwent cochlear implantation but were not benefiting from their devices and underwent ABI in the contralateral ear. The main outcome measures included age-appropriate speech perception and production assessments. RESULTS:Three subjects performed better on their auditory perception assessments using both of their devices than with either device alone. One subject had only preliminary outcomes, but subjectively performed best with both devices. CONCLUSIONS:We observed continued improvement in CI performance over time, even if no benefit was evident before the decision for ABI. This could suggest that ABI and CI have a synergistic effect, or it could simply be the adaptive ability of the developing brain to utilize the signals coming from these devices. There is preliminary evidence to support choosing the ear contralateral to the CI for an ABI in a pediatric patient with bilateral cochlear nerve deficiency.