Comparison of Two Measurement Paradigms to Determine Electrically Evoked Cochlear Nerve Responses and Their Correlation to Cochlear Nerve Cross-section in Infants and Young Children With Cochlear Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) are used for intra-/postoperative monitoring with intracochlear stimulation of cochlear implants. ECAPs are recorded in MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria) implants using auditory response telemetry (ART), which has been further developed with automatic threshold determination as AutoART. The success of an ECAP measurement also depends on the number of available spiral ganglion cells and the bipolar neurons of the cochlear nerve (CN). It is assumed that a higher population of spiral ganglion cell implies a larger CN cross-sectional area (CSA), which consequently affects ECAP measurements. METHODS: Intraoperative ECAP measurements from 19 implanted ears of children aged 8 to 18 months were retrospectively evaluated. A comparison and correlation of ART/AutoART ECAP thresholds/slopes at electrodes E2 (apical), E6 (medial), E10 (basal), and averaged E1 to E12 with CN CSA on magnetic resonance imaging was performed. RESULTS: A Pearson correlation of the ART/AutoART ECAP thresholds/slopes for E2/E6/E10 and the averaged electrodes E1 to E12 showed a significant correlation. The CN CSA did not correlate significantly with the averaged ART/AutoART ECAP thresholds/slopes across all 12 electrodes. SUMMARY: AutoART provides reliable measurements and is therefore a suitable alternative to ART. No significant influence of CN CSA on ECAP thresholds/slopes was observed. A predictive evaluation of the success of ECAP measurements based on CN CSA for a clinical setting cannot be made according to the present data.

ART and AutoART ECAP measurements and cochlear nerve anatomy as predictors in adult cochlear implant recipients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the results of electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements using automatic auditory response telemetry (AutoART) with those obtained by ART in adults. The study also aimed to evaluate the predictive value of intraoperative ART and AutoART ECAPs for speech intelligibility (SI) and hearing success (HS), and to determine if cochlear nerve (CN) cross-sectional area (CSA) obtained preoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans could predict ART and AutoART ECAPs and SI and HS outcome. METHODS: The study analyzed and correlated ART and AutoART ECAP thresholds at electrodes E2, E6, and E10, as well as averaged ECAP thresholds over electrodes E1-E12, using data from 32 implants. Correlations were also examined for ART and AutoART ECAP slopes. In addition, averaged ART and AutoART ECAP thresholds and slopes over all 12 electrodes for each participant were correlated with CN CSA measured from MRI sequences. SI of the monosyllabic Freiburg Speech Test at 65 dB sound pressure level was examined along with averaged ART and AutoART thresholds and slopes over all 12 electrodes. A parallel analysis was performed for HS, derived from the difference between baseline and 6-month SI. Finally, correlations between CN CSA and SI, as well as CN CSA and HS were examined. RESULTS: The results of the study showed a significant positive correlation between ART and AutoART ECAP thresholds and as well as slopes for E2, E6, E10 and averaged thresholds and slopes of E1-E12. However, no significant correlation was observed between ART and AutoART averaged ECAP thresholds and slopes and either SI and HS or CN CSA. Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between CN CSA and SI and HS. CONCLUSION: While AutoART is a reliable and safe program for measuring ECAPs in adults, the study found no preoperative prognostic information on intraoperative ECAP results using parameters extracted from current MRI sequences or pre-/intraoperative information on subsequent hearing outcome using ECAP and CN CSA.

Comparison of speech perception in bimodal cochlear implant patients with respect to the cochlear coverage.

BACKGROUND: The hearing success of patients with bimodal fitting, utilizing both a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA), varies considerably: While some patients benefit from bimodal CI and HA, others do not. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study aimed to investigate speech perception in bimodally fitted patients and compare it with the cochlear coverage (CC). METHODS: The CC was calculated with the OTOPLAN software, measuring the cochlear duct length on temporal bone CT scans of 39 patients retrospectively. The patients were categorized into two groups: CC ≤ 65% (CC500) and CC > 65% (CC600). Monaural speech intelligibility for monosyllables at a sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dB in a free-field setting was assessed before and after CI at various time points. The two groups, one with preoperative HA and one with postoperative CI, were compared. Additionally, speech intelligibility was correlated with CC in the entire cohort before CI and at the last available follow-up (last observation time, LOT). RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in speech intelligibility between CC500 and CC600 patients, with both groups demonstrating a consistent improvement after implantation. While CC600 patients tended to exhibit earlier improvement in speech intelligibility, CC500 patients showed a slower initial improvement within the first 3 months but demonstrated a steeper learning curve thereafter. At LOT, the two patient groups converged, with no significant differences in expected speech intelligibility. There was no significant relationship between unimodal/unilateral free-field speech intelligibility and CC. Interestingly, patients with a CC of 70-75% achieved the highest speech intelligibility. CONCLUSION: Despite of the lack of a significant correlation between CC and speech perception, patients appeared to reach their maximum in unimodal/unilateral speech perception primarily at a coverage level of 70-75%. Nevertheless, further investigation is warranted, as CC500 was associated with shorter cochlear duct length, and different types of electrodes were used in both groups.

[Speech perception as a function of cochlear coverage-comparison in bimodally hearing cochlear implant patients. German version]. / Sprachverstehen in Abhängigkeit von der cochleären Abdeckung ­ Vergleich bei bimodal versorgten Cochleaimplantatpatienten.

BACKGROUND: Hearing success in bimodally hearing patients with a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) exhibits different results: while some benefit from bimodal CI and HA, others do not. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate hearing success in terms of speech perception in bimodally fitted patients in relation to the cochlear coverage (CC) of the CI electrodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the OTOPLAN software (CAScination AG, Bern, Switzerland), CC was retrospectively measured from CT scans of the temporal bone of 39 patients, who were then categorized into two groups: CC ≤ 65% (CC500) and CC > 65% (CC600). Monaural speech intelligibility for monosyllables at a sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dB in open field was assessed at various timepoints, preoperatively with HA and postoperatively with CI, and compared between the groups. In addition, speech intelligibility was correlated with CC in the entire cohort before surgery and during follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Overall, no significant differences in speech intelligibility were found between CC500 and CC600 patients at any of the FU timepoints. However, both CC500 and CC600 patients showed a steady improvement in speech intelligibility after implantation. While CC600 patients tended to show an earlier improvement in speech intelligibility, CC500 patients tended to show a slower improvement during the first 3 months and a steeper learning curve thereafter. The two patient groups converged during FU, with no significant differences in speech intelligibility. There was no significant relationship between unimodal/unilateral free-field speech intelligibility and CC. However, patients with a CC of 70-75% achieved maximum speech intelligibility. CONCLUSION: Despite a nonsignificant correlation between CC and speech discrimination, patients seem to reach their maximum in unimodal/unilateral speech understanding mainly at 70-75% coverage. However, there is room for further investigation, as CC500 was associated with a shorter cochlear duct length (CDL), and long and very long electrodes were used in both groups.