Cochlear implantation under local anaesthesia - Our experience and a validated patient satisfaction questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implantation (CI) under local anaesthetic (LA) has previously been shown to be a successful and safe option for a specific group of patients (e.g. elderly and significant co-morbidity). We aim to discuss our practice and obtain qualitative information about patient experience from our cohort of patients at the Yorkshire Auditory Implant Service (YAIS). METHODS: Retrospective chart review to include demographics, co-morbidities and physiological parameters were recorded and used to calculate P-POSSUM (Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity) scores. The Iowa Satisfaction with Anaesthesia Scale (ISAS) questionnaire was distributed to all patients who received CI under LA and subsequently analysed. RESULTS: Seven patients received CI under LA at YAIS. This included five males and two females. The mean age was 79 years (range 26 -93). The mean P-POSSUM mortality and morbidity for this cohort was 2.4 and 34.9%, respectively. The average ISAS score was +1.72 (where range of -3 is completely dissatisfied and +3 is completely satisfied). DISCUSSION: We discuss our cohort and show that patients receiving CI have a favourable experience when LA is used. CI under LA is a viable and safe option for more elderly patients and those who are deemed at high risk of morbidity or mortality associated with a general anaesthetic. CONCLUSIONS: The data regarding validated patient experience obtained from this study can be used to help counsel patients that may be offered CI under LA.

Inside implant criteria or not? - Detection of non-organic hearing loss during cochlear implant assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of non-organic hearing loss (NOHL) is a difficult but important issue during the assessment process for cochlear implantation (CI). We aim to identify the key factors in identifying patients with NOHL during CI assessment and present our local screening protocol for NOHL. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients referred to the Yorkshire Auditory Implant Service (YAIS) between 2003 and 2015 who were subsequently diagnosed with NOHL during the assessment. Patient demographic data, audiological and functional assessments were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included in the study. Mean age was 43 years (range 14-82 years). Male to female ratio was 1:1.7. Indicators of possible NOHL included a sudden deterioration in hearing (n = 21; 66%), mismatches in observed behaviour and either pure-tone audiogram (PTA) (n = 27; 84%) or functional testing (n = 20; 80%) and stapedial reflexes below reported audiological thresholds (n = 12; 46%). A mismatch in functional hearing and PTA was seen in 72% of patients. Patients with suspected NOHL were referred for further objective testing. All 23 patients who underwent objective testing had better hearing levels compared to reported hearing thresholds thus placing them outside of implant criteria. Five candidates were found to have normal hearing thresholds. DISCUSSION: NOHL can present a significant challenge to the implant team, particularly in the subgroup with a pre-existing organic hearing loss with non-organic overlay. We discuss the common features in this cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the identification of patients with NOHL, the YAIS has developed a screening protocol.

Access to cochlear implants: Time to reflect.

Cochlear implant (CI) intervention is expensive and accessed mainly by developed countries. The introduction of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and funding via a public health service give children better access to CIs. However for adults large disparities exist between utilization and estimated prevalence. In the UK CI selection criteria are restrictive compared with many other countries. Improved audiological awareness and screening programmes for adults would improve access to hearing technologies that would improve health and quality of life. Hearing loss itself has significant medical and financial burdens on society and by investing in early intervention and using best technology this would mitigate some of the rising associated medical costs.

Outcomes with bilateral cochlear implantation following sudden dual sensory loss after ethylene glycol poisoning.

Acute loss of vision accompanied by profound loss of hearing is fortunately rare, but has a catastrophic effect on both the patient and their family. Re-establishing communication and spatial awareness are high priorities. We describe the case of a 45 year-old man who presented as a result of poisoning by ethylene glycol. Following assessment by clinicians who learned the deaf-blind alphabet in order to communicate, he had his hearing successfully rehabilitated with simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants. The patient recovered the ability to understand speech near perfectly in quiet, to attend to the ear giving the clearer signal in noise, and to localise sources of sound. The patient reported that the latter skill facilitated mobility. This is the first reported case of a patient with acute dual sensory loss due to ethylene glycol poisoning benefiting from bilateral cochlear implants.

The cost and analysis of nonuse of cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: Analysis of the cost implications and reasons for nonuse of cochlear implants in an established cochlear implant unit. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively to construct a table of cochlear implant use over time to identify nonuse and to suggest the reasons for this. SETTING: Yorkshire Cochlear Implant Service is a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Three hundred forty consecutively implanted patients from 1990 to 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life table analysis showed that most children used their implant (p = 0.7 during 11 yr). However, 11 of 155 children and 2 of 185 adults became nonusers during the period of study. The 11 children stopped because of age at implant, educational placement, and family support. Two adults stopped because of psychological issues and inability to adapt to the signal. Surgical and implant costs have initial impact, with subsequent years' costs reflecting programming issues and maintenance. When considering nonuse, there are 2 effects: first, no more costs are incurred, and second, no more years of use are accumulated. Thus, nonuse reduces both costs and years. Costs of gaining a year of use as a function of time showed that there was little financial impact from the 11 children nonusers. As a ratio of "no nonuse" and observed "nonuse" in children, the ratio is 1.07 by 13 years of implantation (7%). The adult group was too few to analyze. CONCLUSION: The nonuse added 7% to the average cost. Retrospective audit identifies that patient selection by a multidisciplinary team is crucial to reducing nonuse.