Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design and Speech Understanding.

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant electrode arrays are categorized based on their design as lateral wall (LW) and perimodiolar (PM) electrode arrays. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of LW versus PM designs on postoperative speech perception across multiple manufacturers and over long follow-up durations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 478 adult cochlear implant recipients, implanted between the years 1992 and 2017. INTERVENTIONSS: PM versus LW cochlear implants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Postoperative Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Word (CNC-w) and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) scores between 6 months and 5 years. RESULTS: Across 478 patients, approximately one-third received LW (n = 176, 36.8%), whereas 302 patients received a PM array (63.2%). The PM group had higher CNC-w scores from 6 months to 2 years (52 [interquartile range, 38-68] versus 48 [31-62], p = 0.036) and from 2 to 5 years (58 [43-72] versus 48 [33-66], p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis of patient-averaged scores indicated that the PM group had greater improvement from preoperative scores at all time points after the initial 6 months for both CNC-w ( ß = 4.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-8.3], p = 0.023) and HINT testing ( ß = 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 0.3-8.7], p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that PM electrode arrays are associated with small increases in postoperative speech perception scores, relative to LW arrays, when assessed across manufacturers, over long time durations, and using multiple outcome instruments. These findings may help guide surgeon selection and patient counseling of cochlear implant arrays.

Cochlear Implant Revisions Over Three Decades of Experience.

IMPORTANCE: The indications, technology, and surgical technique for cochlear implantation have evolved over the last three decades. Understanding the risk of cochlear implant revision (CIR) is important for patient counseling. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the rates, indications, and audiologic outcomes for CIR over three decades of experience at a single academic medical center. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for individuals who underwent cochlear implantation between 1985 and 2022. SETTING: Single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Three thousand twenty-five individuals who underwent 3,934 cochlear implant operations from 1985 to 2022. EXPOSURE: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates, indications, risk factors, and audiologic outcomes for CIR. RESULTS: There were 276 cases of CIR after primary implantation and an overall revision rate of 7.6% (95% confidence interval, 6.8-8.5%) over 37 years of follow-up with many cases of CIR secondary to Advanced Bionics vendor B and field action failure groups. CIR rates increased sharply through the early and mid-2000s and have since remained stable. Hard or soft device failure was the most common indication for CIR, accounting for 73% of cases. Pediatric patient status and previous CIR were associated with an increased risk of CIR. Audiologic outcomes after CIR were similar to those before device failure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: CIR remains a common procedure most often performed for device failure. Pediatric patients and those who have undergone previous CIR are at the highest risk for future CIR. Audiologic outcomes remain stable after CIR, and these data will help providers counsel patients at the risk of future CIR and understand the risk factors associated with CIR.

Outcomes after revision of Advanced Bionics Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) for external processor upgrade or device failure is becoming increasingly common as the population of cochlear implant recipients ages. Patients with Advanced Bionics (AB) Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants may undergo CIR for device age/failure or desired technology upgrade so that they may use newer external processors that have improved connectivity features. The objective of this study was to evaluate audiologic outcomes for patients who were initially implanted with an AB Clarion 1.2 internal device and underwent CIR for technology upgrade or device failure. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients (pediatric and adult) with an AB Clarion 1.2 internal device who underwent CIR to a later generation AB internal device and had available audiologic data. RESULTS: Forty-eight individuals with a Clarion 1.2 implant underwent CIR. Pre- and post-CIR speech understanding did not change for AzBio (p-value = 0.11, mean change = 12.1%, 95% CI = -2.9-27.2%), CNCw (p-value = 0.74, mean change = -1%, 95% CI = -10.4-12.4%), or HINT (p-value = 0.12, mean change = 19.9%, 95% CI = -2.6-42.4%) scores. Pure-tone averages improved following CIR (p-value < 0.01, mean change = 4.3 dB, 95% CI = 1.5-7.1 dB). CONCLUSIONS: Revision of AB Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants does not significantly worsen audiologic outcomes and may improve hearing in some individuals, but individual patient-level outcomes are variable.

Trends in Timing and Provision of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Care During COVID-19.

Objectives: To identify trends in timing of pediatric cochlear implant (CI) care during COVID-19. Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Tertiary care center. Methods: Patients under 18 years of age who underwent CI between 1/1/2016 and 2/29/2020 were included in the pre-COVID-19 group, and patients implanted between 3/1/2020 and 12/31/2021 comprised the COVID-19 group. Revision and sequential surgeries were excluded. Time intervals between care milestones including severe-to-profound hearing loss diagnosis, initial CI candidacy evaluation, and surgery were compared among groups, as were the number and type of postoperative visits. Results: A total of 98 patients met criteria; 70 were implanted pre-COVID-19 and 28 during COVID-19. A significant increase in the interval between CI candidacy evaluation and surgery was seen among patients with prelingual deafness during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 (µ = 47.3 weeks, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.8-59.9 vs µ = 20.5 weeks, 95% CI: 13.1-27.9; p < .001). Patients in the COVID-19 group attended fewer in-person rehabilitation visits in the 12 months after surgery (µ = 14.9 visits, 95% CI: 9.7-20.1 vs µ = 20.9, 95% CI: 18.1-23.7; p = .04). Average age at implantation in the COVID-19 group was 5.7 years (95% CI: 4.0-7.5) versus 3.7 years in the pre-COVID-19 group (95% CI: 2.9-4.6; p = .05). The time interval between hearing loss confirmation and CI surgery was on average 99.7 weeks for patients implanted during COVID-19 (95% CI: 48.8-150) versus 54.2 weeks for patients implanted pre-COVID (95% CI: 39.6-68.8), which was not a statistically significant difference (p = .1). Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic patients with prelingual deafness experienced delays in care relative to patients implanted before the pandemic.

Are Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients Consistent Across Different Tests?

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant (CI) candidacy and postoperative outcomes are assessed using sets of speech perception tests that vary from center to center, limiting comparisons across institutions and time periods. The objective of this study was to determine if scores on one speech perception test could be reliably predicted from scores on another test. STUDY DESIGN: Arizona Biomedical (AzBio) Sentence Test, Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant word (CNCw), and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) scores in quiet for the implanted ear were collected for individuals who received a CI between 1985 and 2019. Scores collected during the same testing session were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between testing methods. Simple linear regression with logit transformation was used to generate predictive functions and 95% confidence intervals for expected mean and individual scores. SETTING: Single academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 1,437 individuals with a median age of 59.9 years (range, 18-95 yr) and 46% (654 of 1,437) male. INTERVENTIONS: N.A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement as a function of test score, mean, variance, and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 2,052 AzBio/CNCw, 525 AzBio/HINT, and 7,187 CNCw/HINT same-session score pairings were identified. Pairwise test comparisons demonstrated limited agreement between different tests performed in the same session, and a score correlation between different speech tests revealed large variances. CONCLUSION: Transformation functions between test batteries were predictive of mean scores but performed poorly for prediction of individual scores. Point-wise comparisons of scores across CI test batteries should be used with caution in clinical and research settings.

Catchment Profile of Large Cochlear Implant Centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral CI centers. METHODS: Patients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients' residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas. RESULTS: Over the 6-year study period (2015-2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21-110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P < .001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P < .001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200-mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100-mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P < .001, r2 = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: While large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200-mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.

Posture, Gait, Quality of Life, and Hearing with a Vestibular Implant.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral vestibular hypofunction is associated with chronic disequilibrium, postural instability, and unsteady gait owing to failure of vestibular reflexes that stabilize the eyes, head, and body. A vestibular implant may be effective in alleviating symptoms. METHODS: Persons who had had ototoxic (7 participants) or idiopathic (1 participant) bilateral vestibular hypofunction for 2 to 23 years underwent unilateral implantation of a prosthesis that electrically stimulates the three semicircular canal branches of the vestibular nerve. Clinical outcomes included the score on the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency balance subtest (range, 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating better balance), time to failure on the modified Romberg test (range, 0 to 30 seconds), score on the Dynamic Gait Index (range, 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating better gait performance), time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go test, gait speed, pure-tone auditory detection thresholds, speech discrimination scores, and quality of life. We compared participants' results at baseline (before implantation) with those at 6 months (8 participants) and at 1 year (6 participants) with the device set in its usual treatment mode (varying stimulus pulse rate and amplitude to represent rotational head motion) and in a placebo mode (holding pulse rate and amplitude constant). RESULTS: The median scores at baseline and at 6 months on the Bruininks-Oseretsky test were 17.5 and 21.0, respectively (median within-participant difference, 5.5 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0 to 10.0); the median times on the modified Romberg test were 3.6 seconds and 8.3 seconds (difference, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.5 to 27.6); the median scores on the Dynamic Gait Index were 12.5 and 22.5 (difference, 10.5 points; 95% CI, 1.5 to 12.0); the median times on the Timed Up and Go test were 11.0 seconds and 8.7 seconds (difference, 2.3; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.0); and the median speeds on the gait-speed test were 1.03 m per second and 1.10 m per second (difference, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.30). Placebo-mode testing confirmed that improvements were due to treatment-mode stimulation. Among the 6 participants who were also assessed at 1 year, the median within-participant changes from baseline to 1 year were generally consistent with results at 6 months. Implantation caused ipsilateral hearing loss, with the air-conducted pure-tone average detection threshold at 6 months increasing by 3 to 16 dB in 5 participants and by 74 to 104 dB in 3 participants. Changes in participant-reported disability and quality of life paralleled changes in posture and gait. CONCLUSIONS: Six months and 1 year after unilateral implantation of a vestibular prosthesis for bilateral vestibular hypofunction, measures of posture, gait, and quality of life were generally in the direction of improvement from baseline, but hearing was reduced in the ear with the implant in all but 1 participant. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02725463.).

Continuous vestibular implant stimulation partially restores eye-stabilizing reflexes.

BACKGROUNDBilateral loss of vestibular (inner ear inertial) sensation causes chronically blurred vision during head movement, postural instability, and increased fall risk. Individuals who fail to compensate despite rehabilitation therapy have no adequate treatment options. Analogous to hearing restoration via cochlear implants, prosthetic electrical stimulation of vestibular nerve branches to encode head motion has garnered interest as a potential treatment, but prior studies in humans have not included continuous long-term stimulation or 3D binocular vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) oculography, without which one cannot determine whether an implant selectively stimulates the implanted ear's 3 semicircular canals.METHODSWe report binocular 3D VOR responses of 4 human subjects with ototoxic bilateral vestibular loss unilaterally implanted with a Labyrinth Devices Multichannel Vestibular Implant System vestibular implant, which provides continuous, long-term, motion-modulated prosthetic stimulation via electrodes in 3 semicircular canals.RESULTSInitiation of prosthetic stimulation evoked nystagmus that decayed within 30 minutes. Stimulation targeting 1 canal produced 3D VOR responses approximately aligned with that canal's anatomic axis. Targeting multiple canals yielded responses aligned with a vector sum of individual responses. Over 350-812 days of continuous 24 h/d use, modulated electrical stimulation produced stable VOR responses that grew with stimulus intensity and aligned approximately with any specified 3D head rotation axis.CONCLUSIONThese results demonstrate that a vestibular implant can selectively, continuously, and chronically provide artificial sensory input to all 3 implanted semicircular canals in individuals disabled by bilateral vestibular loss, driving reflexive VOR eye movements that approximately align in 3D with the head motion axis encoded by the implant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02725463.FUNDINGNIH/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders: R01DC013536 and 2T32DC000023; Labyrinth Devices, LLC; and Med-El GmbH.

Safety of radiofrequency ablation for adenotonsillectomy after cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: While a cadaveric animal study has suggested that radiofrequency ablation can be safely used in patients with cochlear implants, no in vivo studies have been published to confirm that radiofrequency ablation does not alter the integrity of the cochlear implant device. METHODS: Cochlear implant impedance and functional performance were studied through a prospective case series in five children with seven functioning multichannel implants before and after radiofrequency ablation adenotonsillectomy. RESULTS: There were 4 females and 1 male patient, aged 6-10 years (mean 8.5 ±â€¯1.95 years) with 7 functioning implants. Pre- and post-surgical impedance testing revealed all electrodes were within normal operating limits. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean pre and post-operative impedances in 5 of the 7 tested implants (P = 0.2-0.8). The other two implants showed statistically significant improvement in impedance values which were not clinically significant (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001). Speech perception was unchanged as was functional performance for all 7 tested implants. CONCLUSIONS: We found that radiofrequency ablation used in the oropharynx during adenotonsillectomy did not alter the integrity of the cochlear implant devices when assessed using electrode impedance testing, audiometry and speech perception evaluation. These results confirm those reported in previous in vitro studies and confirm the safety of radiofrequency ablation adenotonsillectomy for children who have undergone previous cochlear implant placement.