Cochlear-facial dehiscence - the most common cause of facial nerve stimulation from a cochlear implant? A case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of cochlear-facial dehiscence (CFD) and other radiographical pathologies in ears with facial nerve stimulation (FNS) from a cochlear implant (CI). METHODS: Retrospective case-control study of 27 patients with CI and FNS on either ear (study group) and 27 patients without FNS, matched for age, sex and type of electrode array (control group). Preoperative CT scans of all 108 ears were re-evaluated. Subanalyses included comparisons between the study and control groups and associations between FNS and radiographic pathologies. RESULTS: CFDs were detected in 20 of 54 ears (37%) in the study group and in 3 of 54 ears (6%) in the control group (P < 0.001). The corresponding numbers of otosclerosis were 10 (18%) and 0 (P = 0.011) and of developmental anomalies 16 (30%) and 8 (15%) (not significant). FNS was present in 33 ears in the study group, of which 14 (42%) had a CFD. FNS was absent in six ears with CFD and CI, four of which contralateral to an ear with FNS. Eight of 14 ears with FNS and CFD had a lateral electrode array and six had a perimodiolar electrode array. We found no association between the presence of CFD and stimulation thresholds for FNS. The adjusted odds ratio for developing FNS in the presence of a CFD was 9.9 (95% CI 2.7-36.0). CONCLUSIONS: CFD was the most common radiographic pathology in ears with FNS, with a 10-fold increased risk of FNS. To avoid CI-related FNS, preoperative CT scan and awareness of typical dehiscence symptoms are strongly recommended.

Effect of Proximity to the Modiolus for the Cochlear CI532 Slim Modiolar Electrode Array on Evoked Compound Action Potentials and Programming Levels.

BACKGROUND: The first surgeries with CI532 showed an effect of the proximity of the electrode to the modiolus on the Evoked Compound Action Potentials (ECAPs). OBJECTIVES: Objectives of the study were to investigate the effect of the "pullback" procedure on intraoperative ECAP responses in three different electrode array positions and additionally to compare behavioral thresholds with the thresholds obtained in a group of patients using the standard insertion. The hypothesis of this study is that pullback will cause lower ECAPs and behavioral thresholds. PATIENTS: The study included 40 patients, 20 in the pullback insertion group and 20 in the standard insertion group (without pullback). METHOD: During insertion of the CI532 electrode array, ECAP was performed in three different positions for the pullback group: at initial insertion, at over-insertion, and after pullback. Insertion was monitored by fluoroscopy. In the standard group, ECAP was performed at the initial position, which is also the final position. ECAP thresholds (T-ECAPs) were compared within subjects at the initial and the final position in the pullback group and between groups in the final positions of the pullback and standard groups. Programming levels (C- and T-levels) were compared between the two groups 1 year after switch-on. RESULTS: Intraoperative measurements pullback shows lower average T-ECAPs after pullback compared to thresholds in initial position. Comparison of intraoperative T-ECAPs at the final positions showed no statistically significant difference between the pullback group and the standard insertion group. Furthermore, 1 year after switch-on there was no statistically significant difference in C- and T-levels between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The pullback maneuver of the CI532 electrode array after an over-insertion gave significantly lower T-ECAPs compared to the thresholds at the initial position. However, the between-groups analysis of pullback and standard insertion showed neither significantly different T-ECAPs nor different programming levels. Because T-ECAPs and programming levels vary considerably between subjects, large groups are required to detect differences between groups. Additionally, the effect pullback technique to preserving the residual hearing is not known yet.

Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Outcome of the Second Implant and Long-Term Use.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess speech perception outcomes of second-side cochlear implants (CI2) relative to first-side implants (CI1) in 160 participants who received their CI1 as a child. The predictive factors of CI2 speech perception outcomes were investigated. In addition, CI2 device use predictive models were assessed using the categorical variable of participant's decision to use CI2 for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. Findings from a prospective study that evaluated the bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise in a participant subgroup (n = 29) are also presented. DESIGN: Participants received CI2 between 2003 and 2009 (and CI1 between 1988 and 2008), and were observed from surgery to a minimum of 5 years after sequential surgery. Group A (n = 110) comprised prelingually deaf children (severe to profound) with no or little acquired oral language before implantation, while group B (n = 50) comprised prelingually deaf children with acquired language before implantation, in addition to perilingually and postlingually deaf children. Speech perception outcomes included the monosyllable test score or the closed-set Early Speech Perception test score if the monosyllable test was too difficult. To evaluate bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise, participants were tested with the Hearing in Noise test in bilateral and "best CI" test conditions with noise from the front and noise from either side. Bilateral advantage was calculated by subtracting the Hearing in Noise test speech reception thresholds in noise obtained in the bilateral listening mode from those obtained in the unilateral "best CI" mode. RESULTS: On average, CI1 speech perception was 28% better than CI2 performance in group A, the same difference was 20% in group B. A small bilateral speech perception benefit of using CI2 was measured, 3% in group A and 7% in group B. Longer interimplant interval predicted poorer CI2 speech perception in group A, but only for those who did not use a hearing aid in the interimplant interval in group B. At least 5 years after surgery, 25% of group A and 10% of group B did not use CI2. In group A, prediction factors for nonuse of CI2 were longer interimplant intervals or CI2 age. Large difference in speech perception between the two sides was a predictor for CI2 nonuse in both groups. Bilateral advantage for speech recognition in noise was mainly obtained for the condition with noise near the "best CI"; the addition of a second CI offered a new head shadow benefit. A small mean disadvantage was measured when the noise was located opposite to the "best CI." However, the latter was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, in both groups, if CI2 did not become comparable with CI1, participants were more likely to choose not to use CI2 after some time. In group A, increased interimplant intervals predicted poorer CI2 speech perception results and increased the risk of not using CI2 at a later date. Bilateral benefit was mainly obtained when noise was opposite to CI2, introducing a new head shadow benefit.

Deep round window insertion versus standard approach in cochlear implant surgery.

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of vestibular tests and the residual hearing of patients who have undergone full insertion cochlear implant surgery using the round window approach with a hearing preservation protocol (RW-HP) or the standard cochleostomy approach (SCA) without hearing preservation. A prospective study of 34 adults who underwent unilateral cochlear implantation was carried out. One group was operated using the RW-HP (n = 17) approach with Med-El +Flex(SOFT) electrode array with full insertion, while the control group underwent a more conventional SCA surgery (n = 17) with shorter perimodiolar electrodes. Assessments of residual hearing, cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP), videonystagmography, subjective visual vertical/horizontal (SVH/SVV) were performed before and after surgery. There was a significantly (p < 0.05) greater number of subjects who exhibited complete or partial hearing preservation in the deep insertion RW-HP group (9/17) compared to the SCA group (2/15). A higher degree of vestibular loss but a lower degree of vertigo symptoms could be seen in the RW-HP group, but the differences were not statistically significant. It is possible to preserve residual hearing to a certain extent also with deep insertion. Full insertion with hearing preservation was less harmful to residual hearing particularly at 125 Hz (p < 0.05), than was the standard cochleostomy approach.

Insertion Depth in Cochlear Implantation and Outcome in Residual Hearing and Vestibular Function.

OBJECTIVES: It has long been known that cochlear implantation may cause loss of residual hearing and vestibular function. Different insertion depths may cause varying degrees of intracochlear trauma in the apical region of the cochlea. The present study investigated the correlation between the insertion depth and postoperative loss of residual hearing and vestibular function. DESIGN: Thirty-nine adults underwent unilateral cochlear implantation. One group received a Med-El +Flex electrode array (24 mm; n = 4), 1 group received a Med-El +Flex electrode array (28 mm; n = 18), and 1 group received a Med-El +Flex electrode array (31.5 mm; n = 17). Residual hearing, cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials, videonystagmography, and subjective visual vertical/horizontal were explored before and after surgery. The electrode insertion depth and scalar position were examined with high-resolution rotational tomography after implantation in 29 subjects. RESULTS: There was no observed relationship between the angular insertion depth (405° to 708°) and loss of low-frequency pure-tone average. Frequency-specific analysis revealed a weak relationship between the angular insertion depth and loss of hearing at 250 Hz (R= 0.20; p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the residual hearing and vestibular function between the +Flex and the +Flex electrode array. Eight percent of the cases had vertigo after surgery. The electrode arrays were positioned inside the scala tympani and not scala vestibuli in all subjects. In 18% of the cases, the +Flex electrode array was not fully inserted. CONCLUSIONS: The final outcome in residual hearing correlates very weakly with the angular insertion depth for depths above 405°. Postoperative loss of vestibular function did not correlate with the angular insertion depth or age at implantation. The surgical protocol used in this study seems to minimize the risk of postoperative vertigo symptoms.

Scalar position in cochlear implant surgery and outcome in residual hearing and the vestibular system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the intracochlear electrode position on the residual hearing and VNG- and cVEMP responses. DESIGN: Prospective pilot study. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirteen adult patients who underwent unilateral cochlear implant surgery were examined with high-resolution rotational tomography after cochlear implantation. All subjects were also tested with VNG, and 12 of the subjects were tested with cVEMP and audiometry before and after surgery. RESULTS: We found that although the electrode was originally planned to be positioned inside the scala tympani, only 8 of 13 had full insertion into the scala tympani. Loss of cVEMP response occurred to the same extent in the group with full scala tympani positioning and the group with scala vestibuli involvement. There was a non-significant difference in the loss of caloric response and residual hearing between the two groups. Interscalar dislocation of the electrode inside the cochlea was observed in two patients. A higher loss of residual hearing could be seen in the group with electrode dislocation between the scalae. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that intracochlear electrode dislocation is a possible cause to loss of residual hearing during cochlear implantation but cannot be the sole cause of postoperative vestibular loss.

Social hearing measured with the Performance Inventory for Profound and Severe Loss: a comparison between adult multichannel cochlear implant patients and users of acoustical hearing aids.

The objective of this study was to investigate social hearing in successful users of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) and to compare the scores with those of a group of hearing-impaired adults using acoustical hearing aids (HAs). Out of 88 patients who had undergone surgery, 75 CI users with a mean age of 55 years and a mean pre-operative hearing level of 113dB in the better ear were compared with 59 users of acoustical HAs with a mean age of 56 years and a mean hearing level of 82dB in the better ear. Seven CI patients were non-users and were excluded from the study. The Performance Inventory for Profound and Severe Loss, a questionnaire that measures different aspects of hearing handicap, was used. The CI group scored significantly better than the HA group in three of six evaluated categories, measuring subjective intensity of sounds, speech with visual cues, and response to auditory failure. Awareness of environmental sounds, speech with no visual cues and personal reactions did not differ significantly. The group of successful CI users scored higher on a self-report measure than did a group of users of acoustical HAs with moderate- severe-profound deafness. The best CI users scored better than the best HA users, and the worst CI users scored worse than the worst HA users.

Late radiation effects on hearing, vestibular function, and taste in brain tumor patients.

PURPOSE: To investigate late radiation effects on hearing, vestibular function, and taste after conventional radiotherapy in brain tumor patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Hearing, vestibular function, and taste were assessed in 33 brain tumor patients irradiated unilaterally to the tumor-bearing hemisphere and the temporal bone. Median observation time after completion of radiotherapy was 13 years; the fraction dose was 1.8 Gy, and mean radiation dose was 53.1 Gy. RESULTS: Deep ulceration in the external ear canal and osteoradionecrosis on the irradiated side was seen in three patients. Reduced hearing was found for air and bone conduction of the irradiated side compared to the opposite side (0.25-2 kHz: 6.1 dB, 4 kHz: 10.3 dB, 6 kHz: 15.6 dB, and 8 kHz: 16.5 dB). For bone conduction, the corresponding figures were 0.25-2 kHz: 5.5 dB and 4 kHz: 8.2 dB. Three patients had a canal paresis of the irradiated side, and three patients had affection of the chorda tympani. CONCLUSION: Irradiation of the temporal bone with doses usually given in the treatment of patients with brain tumors may cause osteoradionecrosis, sensorineural hearing loss, dysfunction of the vestibular inner ear, and loss of taste. Head-and-neck examination should be included in the follow-up of long-term survivors.