Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To report the outcomes on a large series of elderly patients who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS). METHODS:Retrospective chart review on 100 consecutive elderly patients (> 65 years) who underwent CI with LA-CS at a tertiary care center between August 2013 and January 2020. An age-matched control group of 50 patients who underwent CI with general anesthesia (GA) are used for comparison. Outcomes measured included time in the operating room, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and rate of adverse events. RESULTS:Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS was successfully performed in 99 (99%) patients. One patient requiring conversion to GA intraoperatively. No patients in the LA-CS group experienced cardiopulmonary adverse events; however, three patients (6%) in the GA group experienced minor events including atrial fibrillation and/or demand ischemia. Overnight observation in the hospital due to postoperative medical concerns or prolonged wake-up from anesthesia was required in one patient (1%) from the LA-CS cohort and 12 patients (24%) from the GA cohort. Perioperative adverse events exclusive to the LA-CS group included severe intraoperative vertigo (8%), temporary facial nerve paresis (3%), and wound infection (1%). The average amount of time spent in the operating room was 37 minutes less for procedures performed under LA-CS compared to GA (P < .05). The average amount of time in recovery was similar for both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS offers many benefits and is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective alternative to GA when performed by experienced CI surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3 Laryngoscope, 2020.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Some cochlear implant (CI) patients lose their residual hearing during surgery. Two factors that might play a role in residual hearing loss are the change in intracochlear hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall during electrode insertion. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a difference in peak hydraulic pressure and peak force on the cochlear wall exists during a CI electrode insertion with different insertion techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Twenty fresh frozen temporal bones were used. Hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall were recorded during straight electrode insertions with 1) slow versus fast insertion speed, 2) manual versus automatic insertion method and 3) round window approach (RWA) versus extended RWA (ERWA). RESULTS:When inserting with a slow compared to a fast insertion speed, the peak hydraulic pressure is 239% (95% CI: 130-399%) higher with a RWA and 58% (95% CI: 6-137%) higher with an ERWA. However, the peak force on the cochlear wall is a factor 29% less (95% CI: 13-43%) with a slow insertion speed. No effect was found of opening and insertion method. CONCLUSIONS:As contradictory findings were found for hydraulic pressure and force on the cochlear wall on insertion speed, it remains unclear which insertion speed (slow versus fast) is less traumatic to inner ear structure.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Cochlear implants are a treatment option for individuals with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who receive little or no benefit from hearing aids; however, cochlear implantation in adults is still not routine. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To develop consensus statements regarding the use of unilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This study was a modified Delphi consensus process that was informed by a systematic review of the literature and clinical expertise. Searches were conducted in the following databases: (1) MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE, (2) Embase, and (3) the Cochrane Library. Consensus statements on cochlear implantation were developed using the evidence identified. This consensus process was relevant for the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with severe, profound, or moderate sloping to profound bilateral SNHL. The literature searches were conducted on July 18, 2018, and the 3-step Delphi consensus method took place over the subsequent 9-month period up to March 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:A Delphi consensus panel of 30 international specialists voted on consensus statements about cochlear implantation, informed by an SR of the literature and clinical expertise. This vote resulted in 20 evidence-based consensus statements that are in line with clinical experience. A modified 3-step Delphi consensus method was used to vote on and refine the consensus statements. This method consisted of 2 rounds of email questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting of panel members at the final round. All consensus statements were reviewed, discussed, and finalized at the face-to-face meeting. Results/UNASSIGNED:In total, 6492 articles were identified in the searches of the electronic databases. After removal of duplicate articles, 74 articles fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were used to create the 20 evidence-based consensus statements. These 20 consensus statements on the use of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL were relevant to the following 7 key areas of interest: level of awareness of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement); best practice clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery (3 consensus statements); best practice guidelines for surgery (2 consensus statements); clinical effectiveness of cochlear implantation (4 consensus statements); factors associated with postimplantation outcomes (4 consensus statements); association between hearing loss and depression, cognition, and dementia (5 consensus statements); and cost implications of cochlear implantation (1 consensus statement). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:These consensus statements represent the first step toward the development of international guidelines on best practices for cochlear implantation in adults with SNHL. Further research to develop consensus statements for unilateral cochlear implantation in children, bilateral cochlear implantation, combined electric-acoustic stimulation, unilateral cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness, and asymmetrical hearing loss in children and adults may be beneficial for optimizing hearing and quality of life for these patients.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe the surgical technique and outcome in a series of patients who underwent revision cochlear implantation using a double array or split electrode device. All patients developed ossified cochleae due to meningitis and were functioning poorly with the previous implant. METHODS:Four patients between the ages of 4-15 years underwent revision with five double-array cochlear implant devices. One patient underwent bilateral revision surgery. All patients had previous meningitis with CT and MRI imaging studies that demonstrated completely ossified cochleae. The time interval range between the disease and the initial cochlear implantation and was 4 months to 3 years. The patient's data were retrospectively analyzed with emphasis on the surgical technique, the number of electrodes inserted, and the number of active electrodes at follow-up. In addition, pre and post-revision surgery function was compared. RESULTS:The revision surgery was carried out 2-11 years after the initial surgery. Two tunnels, basal and apical, were drilled in the ossified cochlea. In each of the tunnels, 5 to 11 electrodes were inserted. While the number of active electrodes before revision was 0-5, after revision with the double array, it was increased to 8-12, resulting in improved auditory and speech function. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Revision cochlear implantation with a double array implant using the two tunnel technique can increase the number of active electrodes. This leads to a better outcome in post-meningitis children with completely ossified cochleae and a poor functioning previous device.

: This combined American Neurotology Society, American Otological Society, and American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Foundation document aims to provide guidance during the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) on 1) "priority" of care for otologic and neurotologic patients in the office and operating room, and 2) optimal utilization of personal protective equipment. Given the paucity of evidence to inform otologic and neurotologic best practices during COVID-19, the recommendations herein are based on relevant peer-reviewed articles, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 guidelines, United States and international hospital policies, and expert opinion. The suggestions presented here are not meant to be definitive, and best practices will undoubtedly change with increasing knowledge and high-quality data related to COVID-19. Interpretation of this guidance document is dependent on local factors including prevalence of COVID-19 in the surgeons' local community. This is not intended to set a standard of care, and should not supersede the clinician's best judgement when managing specific clinical concerns and/or regional conditions.Access to otologic and neurotologic care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent upon adequate protection of physicians, audiologists, and ancillary support staff. Otolaryngologists and associated staff are at high risk for COVID-19 disease transmission based on close contact with mucosal surfaces of the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic procedures. While many otologic and neurotologic conditions are not imminently life threatening, they have a major impact on communication, daily functioning, and quality of life. In addition, progression of disease and delay in treatment can result in cranial nerve deficits, intracranial and life-threatening complications, and/or irreversible consequences. In this regard, many otologic and neurotologic conditions should rightfully be considered "urgent," and almost all require timely attention to permit optimal outcomes. It is reasonable to proceed with otologic and neurotologic clinic visits and operative cases based on input from expert opinion of otologic care providers, clinic/hospital administration, infection prevention and control specialists, and local and state public health leaders. Significant regional variations in COVID-19 prevalence exist; therefore, physicians working with local municipalities are best suited to make determinations on the appropriateness and timing of otologic and neurotologic care.

As the world's geriatric population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, an increasing number of elderly patients are seeking hearing rehabilitation strategies, including cochlear implantation (CI). However, CI surgery in elderly patients has been met with trepidation given fears of physical and cognitive complications associated with general anesthesia. Cochlear implant surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS) in the elderly population is a safe and feasible alternative to general anesthesia. Elderly patients who are too infirm for general anesthesia or who choose not to pursue CI due to fears of the cognitive or medical consequences of general anesthesia should be counseled on the option of doing it under LA-CS by experienced CI surgeons. This article provides an overview of the surgical technique and technical nuances of performing CI surgery under LA-CS.

OBJECTIVE:To determine factors associated with infection, management, and resultant outcomes following pediatric cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study with nested case series. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Children who underwent either unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation between June 2011 and September 2016 and were under the age of 18 at the time of surgery. INTERVENTION(S)/METHODS:Subjects were compared based on age, cochlea malformation, revision surgery, operative time, device manufacturer, and antibiotic use. Infections were compared based on location, time, bacteria, management, and resolution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)/METHODS:Rate of infection, rate of device explantation. RESULTS:There were 16 infections among 246 surgeries, an infection rate of 6.5%. There was a significant age difference between infected and noninfected patients overall (n = 246, 1.4 versus 4.3 years, p = 0.005), but not within the cohort of patients five or younger (n = 172, 1.4 versus 1.8 years, p = 0.363). The most common infectious complication was skin infection, followed by device infection. No cases of meningitis were seen. The most common organism was S Aureus. The implant was salvaged in 9 of 16 patients (56.3%), with higher rates in patients treated with IV versus oral antibiotics (70 versus 40%). CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative infection is positively associated with younger age overall, but not in patients below the age of 5. With modern devices and surgical practices, risk of meningitis-though a concern-may be lower than cited in the literature. Prompt and aggressive therapy with IV antibiotics and operative intervention can allow for high rates of device salvage.

Introduction: While cochlear implants (CI) prior to 12 months of age have become common, the prevalence and impact of issues that either arise or were not evident prior to implantation is unknown. Methods: Retrospective chart review of children implanted under 12 months of age with minimum 3 years follow up. The children were divided into three groups: those with no identified additional disabilities, those with no known disabilities at time of implantation but diagnosed with additional disabilities following implantation, and those that had known anticipated additional disabilities at time of implantation. Results: 108 children under the age of 12 months were implanted at our Center between 2000 and 2013 with an average age of 9 months at time of implantation and n = 93 met inclusion criteria. In 79.6% (74/93) of children, there were no additional issues detected. In 11.8% (11/93), additional issues were known at the time of implantation while in 8.6% (8/93) of the children were diagnosed with additional issues that were not evident prior to implantation. The auditory and linguistic benefits vary commensurate with the severity of their disabilities. Those with anticipated issues preoperatively did not perform as well. Conclusions: Children implanted below one year of age but diagnosed with additional disabilities following implantation obtained substantial though varying degrees of benefit. In none of these cases would knowledge of the disability have altered the decision to offer early CI. It is important to address these potential issues when counseling families about outcomes.