Hearing preservation in children with electric-acoustic stimulation after cochlear implantation : Outcome after electrode insertion with minimal insertion trauma

The Effect of Pluronic-Coated Gold Nanoparticles in Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implantation-Pilot Study

Introduction: During cochlear implantation, electrode insertion can cause cochlear damage, inflammation, and apoptosis, which can affect the residual hearing. Nanoparticles are increasingly studied as a way to increase the availability of inner ear protective factors. We studied the effect on rats of Pluronic-coated gold nanoparticles (Plu-AuNPs) containing dexamethasone, which were applied locally in the rat’s middle ear following the implant procedure. Methods: Seven rats were used in the study. The right ear served as a model for the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. Following the intracochlear dummy electrode insertion through the round window, Dex-Plu-AuNPs were placed in the round window niche. In the right ear, following the same insertion procedure, free dexamethasone (Dex) was placed in the same manner. Auditory brainstem response thresholds (click stimulus, pure tones at 8 kHz, 16 kHz, 24 kHz, and 32 kHz) were measured before and one week after the procedure. A two-tailed T-test was used for the variables. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Results: In the Dex-Plu-AuNP group, the threshold shift was less than that in the free dexamethasone group, but no statistical significance was noted between the groups. When compared individually, only the 8 kHz frequency showed statistically significant, better results after one week, in favor of the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. The mean postoperative 8 kHz threshold in the Dex-Plu-AuNPs was significantly lower than that of the control group (p = 0.048, t-test). For the other frequencies, statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the mean threshold shifts of the two cohorts. Conclusions: The local application of Plu-AuNPs containing dexamethasone following cochlear implantation may better protect the residual hearing than dexamethasone alone, but a larger sample size is needed to reach a possible statistical significance. Dex-Plu-AuNPs do not seem to cause ototoxicity and may be used as a carrier for other agents. In a clinical setting, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may have the effect of protecting lower frequencies in patients with partial deafness who are candidates for electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). If we consider this tendency, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may also be beneficial for patients with Ménière’s disease.

Evaluating cochlear insertion trauma and hearing preservation after cochlear implantation (CIPRES): a study protocol for a randomized single-blind controlled trial

Background

In order to preserve residual hearing in patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) who receive a cochlear implant (CI), insertion trauma to the delicate structures of the cochlea needs to be minimized. The surgical approach comprises the conventional mastoidectomy-posterior tympanotomy (MPT) to arrive at the middle ear, followed by either a cochleostomy (CO) or the round window (RW) approach. Both techniques have their benefits and disadvantages. Another important aspect in structure preservation is the design of the electrode array. Two different designs are used: a “straight” lateral wall lying electrode array (LW) or a “pre-curved” perimodiolar lying electrode array (PM). Interestingly, until now, the best surgical approach and design of the implant is uncertain. Our hypothesis is that there is a difference in hearing preservation outcomes between the four possible treatment options.

Methods

We designed a monocenter, multi-arm, randomized controlled trial to compare insertion trauma between four groups of patients, with each group having a unique combination of an electrode array type (LW or PM) and surgical approach (RW or CO). In total, 48 patients will be randomized into one of these four intervention groups. Our primary objective is the comparison of postoperative hearing preservation between these four groups. Secondly, we aim to assess structure preservation (i.e., scalar translocation, with basilar membrane disruption or tip fold-over of array) for each group. Thirdly, we will compare objective outcomes of hearing and structure preservation by way of electrocochleography (ECochG).

Discussion

Cochlear implantation by way of a cochleostomy or round window approach, using different electrode array types, is the standard medical care for patients with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, as it is a relatively simple and low-risk procedure that greatly benefits patients. However, loss of residual hearing remains a problem. This trial is the first randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of cochlear insertion trauma of several CI treatment options on hearing preservation.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) NL8586. Registered on 4 May 2020. Retrospectively registered; 3/48 participants were included before registration.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05878-2.

The influence of Slim Modiolar electrode on residual hearing in pediatric patients

PURPOSE

Hearing preservation cochlear implantation is an established procedure in patients with low-frequency residual hearing, especially in pediatric cochlear implantation. More delicate, thin electrode arrays can minimize damage in the inner ear and enhance the possibility for residual hearing preservation. The Cochlear^® CI532 electrode has been reported as an electrode with the potential for residual hearing preservation. No similar studies pertaining to hearing preservation in pediatric patients have appeared to date. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the Cochlear^® CI532 Slim Modiolar electrode allows the preservation of low-frequency residual hearing in children undergoing cochlear implantation.

METHODS

In this multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective clinical cohort study, medical data of 14 pediatric patients implanted with the CI532 were collected. All patients had residual low-frequency hearing (preoperative audiogram or ABR with at least one threshold better than 90 dB HL at 125, 250, 500, or 1000 Hz). Postoperative thresholds were obtained 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after cochlear implantation.

RESULTS

Based on the HEARRING classification, 78.6% of children (11/14) had complete hearing preservation at the last follow-up visit (12 months after CI, or if not available, 6 months). A total of 21.4% (3/14) had partial hearing preservation. At the last follow-up visit, neither minimal hearing preservation nor loss of hearing was observed. Functional low-frequency hearing was preserved in 13 out of 14 patients (93%).

CONCLUSIONS

The residual hearing preservation results in children were superior to the results previously reported in adults.