Tinnitus modifications after cochlear implantation.

Tinnitus can be defined as a phantom sensation in the absence of an external sound. In our study, we evaluated the effect of cochlear implant on tinnitus evolution. Among adult, postlingually deaf patients who underwent cochlear implantation at our clinic, we selected 20 subjects with pre-implantation tinnitus (group A) and 10 subjects without pre-implantation tinnitus (group B). Pre- and post-surgery tinnitus was assessed through two questionnaires: the first one dealing with tinnitus characteristics and psychosocial impact, and the second one represented by THI, an internationally validated score of evaluation of the effects of tinnitus on patient's emotions and activities of daily living. None of the patients belonging to group B developed tinnitus after surgery. As for group A, 40% of patients declared suppression of tinnitus, 30% attenuation of tinnitus after surgery, 25% reported tinnitus was unchanged and 5% reported worsening of tinnitus. In the nine patients with bilateral tinnitus (45%), after implantation tinnitus disappeared from both sides in four patients and attenuated bilaterally in four patients. A comparison between pre- and post-implantation THI scores showed decreased score in 65% of cases, unchanged score in 30% and increased score in 5%. The beneficial effect of cochlear implant on tinnitus, reported by a majority of patients, could be due to acoustic masking, to direct electrical stimulation of the acoustic nerve, and above all to a possible cochlear implantation dependent reorganization of the central auditory pathways and associative cerebral areas. In the light of these results, the authors propose (1) to include tinnitus in the selection criteria of which ear to implant; (2) to consider implantation eligibility for patients with bilateral severe hearing loss associated with severe tinnitus; and (3) to inform patients about the small risk of post-operative tinnitus worsening.

Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception.

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an evident mismatch between frequencies assigned to electrodes and frequencies evoked by stimulation of those same electrodes in implanted patients. We propose that the mapping procedures should include, whenever possible, a comparison with homolateral residual hearing in order to obtain an appropriate frequency range assignation for each electrode. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to investigate the correspondence between the frequencies assigned to each electrode and those actually perceived by the cochlear implant patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied five post-lingually deaf adults with detectable residual hearing in the implanted and in the contralateral ear, who had each received a Cochlear implant. An ACE standard setting was used for mapping. The patients were asked to match the electric pitch with the acoustic one following presentation of pure tones to both the implanted and the contralateral ear. RESULTS: In almost all patients the two most apical electrodes evoked higher frequencies than those assigned by the mapping software (E22 = 188-313, E21 = 313-438 Hz). Therefore, electric stimulation seems not to determine pitch sensations for frequencies <500 Hz. For most electrodes there is no correspondence between the acoustic pitch and the assigned frequency ranges. Moreover, these results were almost always different when stimulating the implanted and the contralateral ear.

Residual hearing in cochlear implant patients.

Preservation of residual hearing should be a desirable outcome of implant surgery. Prevention of neural degeneration due to loss of residual hair cells, together with the continuous progress in cochlear implant technology should be able to preserve cochlear integrity as well as possible. The degree of hearing preservation may vary depending on surgical approach, maximum insertion depth and other factors not uniformly considered to date. The aim of this retrospective case controlled study is to evaluate residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery. In particular, we analyzed data obtained with use of two different kinds of electrode arrays, with and without rigid introductor (stylet). We report the results on 37 patients with measurable preoperative hearing thresholds, mean age of 28 years (5-70 years), having the following implants: seven Advanced Bionics, four Med-El, 24 Cochlear, two MXM; 19 of them were performed using the stylet and the other 18 without it. A minimally invasive surgical approach was performed with a short retroauricular incision and a 1.2 mm cochleostomy. A complete electrode array insertion was obtained in all patients. Responses to pure-tone stimuli were measured for each ear in pre-implantation conditions and 3-12 months after surgery. After implantation 14 patients (38%) showed no hearing threshold variation, 29 (78%) maintained an appreciable hearing threshold level in the implanted ear, 8 (22%) had a total loss of residual hearing. Median increases of threshold levels were, in all 37 studied patients, 5, 10, 10 and 5 dB HL, respectively, for 125, 250, 500 and 1 kHz. For the 18 patients having implants without the stylet median increases of threshold levels were 0, 10, 5 and 7 dB HL; in the stylet group, they were 10, 5, 5 and 10 dB HL. On a comparison between the stylet and the non-stylet group, no significant differences in mean hearing threshold worsening were found. Data seem to suggest that cochlear function is less sensitive to mechanical trauma during implant surgery than was thought. Besides, electrode array stiffness seems not to influence preservation of cochlear residual functional integrity. Finally, the authors hypothesize a direct spiral ganglion activation under strong mechanical stimulation.

Residual hearing thresholds in cochlear implantation and reimplantation.

Implant and reimplantation surgery should be carried out with preservation of residual hearing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of such a surgery on hearing threshold. We report the results on 40 patients, 20 males and 20 females, aged between 5 and 70 (mean 29) years, 16 pre-verbal and 24 post-verbal, with measurable pre-operative auditory thresholds. We used the following implants: Advanced Bionics, Med-El, Cochlear, and MXM Digisonic. Four of the patients underwent cochlear reimplantation owing to device failure. A complete insertion was obtained in all patients. Responses to pure-tone stimuli were evaluated in each ear in pre-implant conditions and 3 months after cochlear implant or reimplantation. The explantation was performed with minimal cochlear trauma and preservation of the explanted electrode integrity. 35% showed no change of the hearing threshold, 45% showed a slight worsening of the hearing threshold level in the implanted ear, and 20% had a total loss of residual hearing. Median increases of threshold levels were 10, 5, 10 and 3 dB HL respectively for 125, 250, 500 and 1 kHz. In the group of 4 patients who underwent cochlear reimplantation, 2 showed no variation of the hearing threshold, 1 preserved an appreciable hearing threshold, and 1 had a total loss of residual hearing. The data seem to suggest that hearing function is rather resistant to mechanical trauma during implant and reimplant surgery; the authors hypothesize a role for direct spiral ganglion activation under intense mechanical stimulation.