Faculty Bibliography

AIM/UNASSIGNED:Untreated hearing loss is risk factor for dementia, depression and falls in the elderly population. The present study evaluated the outcomes of cochlear implantation in adults over age 85, including surgical outcomes, speech perception, and implant use. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective chart review of 78 patients implanted at a tertiary academic medical center. Co-morbidities, pre-operative hearing thresholds and speech perception scores at 4 time points (pre-operative, and 3 months, 1, 2, and 3 years post-operatively) were collected from charts. Linear mixed models were used to account for missing data points. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Medical comorbidities such as hypertension (56%) and heart disease (53%) were common. Surgical complications were rare (5% or less) and minor. Local anesthesia was used for 71% of study patients implanted in the last three years. Significant improvements were seen for speech perception scores on monosyllabic words (37 percentage points), sentences in quiet (45 percentage points) and sentences in noise (28 percentage points). These improvements remained stable to at least two years post-activation. Seventy-one percent of patients wore their implant full time. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Cochlear implantation is safe and effective for very elderly adults. The use of local anesthesia may increase adoption of cochlear implantation and thus improve the quality of life for this population.

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.

In children with congenital deafness, cochlear implantation (CI) prior to 12 months of age offers the opportunity to foster more typical auditory development during late infancy and early childhood. Recent studies have found a positive association between early implantation and expressive and receptive language outcomes, with some children able to achieve normal language skills by the time of school entry. Universal newborn hearing screening improved early detection and diagnosis of congenital hearing loss, allowing for earlier intervention, including decision-making regarding cochlear implant (CI) candidacy. It can be more challenging to confirm CI candidacy in infants; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach, including objective audiometric testing, is recommended to not only confirm the diagnosis but also to counsel families regarding expectations and long-term management. Surgeons performing CI surgery in young children should consider both the anesthetic risks of surgery in infancy and the ways in which mastoid anatomy may differ between infants and older children or adults. Multiple studies have found CI surgery in infants can be performed safely and effectively. This article reviews current evidence regarding indications for implantation in children younger than 12 months of age and discusses perioperative considerations and surgical technique.

The aim of this study was to investigate surgical, anesthetic, and device-related complications associated with cochlear implantation (CI) in children younger than 1 year of age. This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review of all children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss who underwent cochlear implantation with a Cochlear Nucleus Implant System before 1 year of age. Endpoints included perioperative course, major and minor surgical, anesthetic and device-related complications, and 30-day readmission rates. One hundred thirty-six infants (242 ears) met criteria. The mean age at implantation was 9.4 months (standard deviation 1.8). Six-month follow-up was reported in all patients. There were no major anesthetic or device-related complications. Adverse events were reported in 34 of implanted ears (14%; 7 major, 27 minor). Sixteen adverse events occurred ≤30 days of surgery, and 18 occurred >30 days of surgery. The 30-day readmission rate was 1.5%. The rate of adverse events did not correlate with preexisting medical comorbidities or duration under anesthesia. There was no significant difference detected in complication rate for patients younger than 9 months of age versus those 9 to 11 months of age. This study demonstrates the safety of CI surgery in infants and supports reducing the indication for cochlear implantation to younger than 1 year of age for children with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss obtaining a Cochlear Nucleus Implant System.

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 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.

BACKGROUND:Prior studies have shown an advantage for electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in cochlear implant (CI) patients with residual hearing, but the degree of benefit can vary. The objective was to explore which factors relate to performance with and acceptance of EAS for CI users with conventional-length electrodes. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was conducted for adults with an average threshold of 75 dB hearing loss or better across 250 and 500 Hz preoperatively (n = 83). All patients underwent cochlear implantation with a conventional-length electrode. Low-frequency audiometric thresholds were measured at initial activation as well as 3 and 12 months postoperatively to determine who met the criteria for EAS. Speech perception for CNC words and AzBio sentences in quiet and +10 dB SNR noise was evaluated 3 and 12 months after activation. RESULTS:Speech perception in quiet and noise was similar regardless of whether or not the patient was eligible for EAS. Less than half of the patients who met the EAS criteria chose to use it, citing reasons such as physical discomfort or lack of perceived benefit. EAS users performed better on CNC words but not sentence recognition than EAS nonusers. CONCLUSIONS:EAS use is dependent on audiologic and nonaudiologic issues. Hearing preservation is possible with conventional electrodes, but hearing preservation alone does not guarantee superior speech perception.

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.

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.