Initial Experience With a Recently Developed Lateral Wall Electrode

Comparison of Speech Recognition and Hearing Preservation Outcomes Between the Mid-Scala and Lateral Wall Electrode Arrays

OBJECTIVE

To assess speech recognition and hearing preservation (HP) outcomes with the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ electrodes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of 237 adult patients implanted between 2013 and 2020 (Mid-Scala, n = 136; SlimJ, n = 101).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) and AzBio (Arizona Biomedical) scores at 6 and 12 months; postoperative HP, defined as low-frequency pure-tone average ≤ 80 dB HL; scalar position.

RESULTS

Mean CNC scores did not significantly differ between Mid-Scala and SlimJ recipients at 6 (45.8% versus 46.0%, p = 0.962) and 12 (51.9% versus 48.8%, p = 0.363) months. Similarly, mean AzBio in quiet scores were equivalent for both groups at 6 (55.1% versus 59.2%, p = 0.334) and 12 (60.6% versus 62.3%, p = 0.684) months. HP rates were significantly higher with the SlimJ (48.4%) than the Mid-Scala (30.8%; p = 0.033). Scalar translocations were 34.8 and 16.1% for the Mid-Scala and SlimJ groups, respectively ( p = 0.019). Ears with postoperative HP had significantly fewer scalar translocations (16.7% versus 37.2%, p = 0.048), and postoperative HP was associated with higher AzBio in noise scores at the most recent follow-up interval (38.7% versus 25.1%, p = 0.042). CNC, AzBio in quiet and noise, low-frequency pure-tone average shifts, and PTA at 6 and 12 months were not significantly different between patients with scala tympani insertions of the SlimJ versus the Mid-Scala ( p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the Mid-Scala, the lateral wall electrode has superior HP rates and fewer scalar translocations, whereas speech recognition scores are equivalent between both electrode arrays. These findings can help providers with electrode selection and patient counseling.

Slim Modiolar Electrode Placement in Candidates for Electroacoustic Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

To determine rates of hearing preservation and performance in patients who met candidacy for electroacoustic stimulation (EAS) and were implanted with a slim modiolar electrode (CI532 or CI632).

DESIGN

Adult patients meeting Food and Drug Administration criteria for electroacoustic stimulation (preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average [LFPTA] less than 60 dB at 125, 250, and 500 Hz and monosyllabic word scores between 10% and 60% in the ear to be implanted), who received a slim modiolar electrode were included. Main outcome measures included rates of hearing preservation, defined as a LFPTA ≤80 dB at 125, 250, and 500 Hz, as well as postoperative low-frequency pure-tone threshold shifts, consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores and AzBio sentences in noise scores.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients met inclusion criteria during a 4-year period. Mean (standard deviation) preoperative LFPTA was 34.5 (13.0) dB, and 71.7% had preserved hearing at initial activation. The mean LFPTA shift in patients who preserved hearing at initial activation was 19.7 (14.6) dB, compared with 62.6 (17.7) dB in patients who did not preserve hearing as per our definition. Perioperative steroid use was not different in patients with and without preserved hearing (X 2 (1, N = 46) = 0.19, p = .67, V = 0.06). One year after surgery, 57% of patients had a decline in LFPTA >80 dB and were no longer considered candidates for EAS, with 34.7% still retaining low-frequency thresholds ≤80 dB. CNC word scores at 1 year were 69.9% and 61.4% among individuals with and without preserved low-frequency hearing respectively, measured in their CI ear alone, in their regular listening condition of EAS or electric only ( t (32) = 1.13, p = 0.27, d = 0.39, 95% CI = -6.51, 22.86). Device use time did not differ between groups. Among adults with preserved residual hearing at 1 year (n = 16), 44% used EAS, although there was no significant difference in performance between EAS users and nonusers with preserved hearing. Loss of residual hearing over time did not result in a decline in speech perception performance.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated favorable early rates of hearing preservation with a slim modiolar array. Performance was not significantly different in individuals with and without preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing, independent of EAS use. Compared with reports of short electrode use, the loss of residual hearing in patients implanted with this array did not impact speech perception performance.

Early Hearing Preservation Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation With New Slim Lateral Wall Electrode Using Electrocochleography

OBJECTIVE

Describe early hearing preservation (HP) cochlear implantation (CI) outcomes using a new slim lateral wall electrode (SLWE).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Adult CI candidates with preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA; 125, 250, 500 Hz) ≤60 dB HL.

INTERVENTION

CI with and without intracochlear real-time electrocochleography (RT-ECochG).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

HP (LFPTA ≤80 dB HL), LFPTA shift, speech-perception performance measures, postoperative CT reconstruction.

RESULTS

Forty-two subjects were implanted with the SLWE. Thirty patients underwent full insertion without RT-ECochG feedback, and HP was maintained at 3-months postactivation for 7 (23.3%) patients with mean LFPTA shift of 57.5 ± 25.6 dB HL. RT-ECochG feedback was utilized on 12 patients, of whom 6 patients had full insertions and 6 patients had anywhere from 1 to 3 electrodes left outside of the cochlea based on RT-ECochG feedback. At 3 months postoperatively, HP was achieved on 10 (83.3%) patients and mean LFPTA shift was 18.9 c 11.7 dB HL. Mean difference between LFPTA threshold shift at 3-months postactivation with and without RT-ECochG was 38.6 dB HL (95% CI, 25.6-51.67). There was an improvement in delta CNC from preoperative to 3-months postactivation when using RT-ECochG, with mean difference 20.7% (95% CI, 3.3-38.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of RT-ECochG monitoring during SLWE placement results in fewer full electrode insertions and significantly better HP rates and speech-perception outcomes when compared with unmonitored insertions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate long-term audiologic outcomes to better understand the relationships among ECochG, cochlear trauma, functional outcomes, and HP.