Evaluation of hearing preservation in adults with a slim perimodiolar electrode

A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is a difference in hearing outcomes or stimulation levels between Advanced Bionics straight and precurved arrays.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review across three implant centers.

SETTING

Tertiary centers for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifteen pediatric and 205 adult cochlear implants (CIs) were reviewed. All patients were implanted under the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2009 guidelines with a HiRes Ultra SlimJ or Mid-Scala electrode array.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hearing preservation after implantation, as well as CI-only listening scores for Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentences were compared 1 year after implantation. Stimulation levels for threshold and comfort levels were also compared 1 year after implantation.

RESULTS

Hearing preservation was significantly better with the SlimJ compared with the Mid-Scala electrode array. Bamford-Kowal-Bench outcomes were not significantly different between the two arrays in any listening condition. Stimulation levels were not different between arrays but did vary across electrode contacts. At least one electrode was deactivated in 33% of implants but was more common for the SlimJ device.

CONCLUSION

Modern straight and precurved arrays from Advanced Bionics did not differ in hearing performance or current requirements. Although hearing preservation was possible with both devices, the SlimJ array would still be the preferred electrode in cases where hearing preservation was a priority. Unfortunately, the SlimJ device was also prone to poor sound perception on basal electrodes. Further investigation is needed to determine if deactivated electrodes are associated with electrode position/migration, and if programming changes are needed to optimize the use of these high-frequency channels.

Cochlear implantation impairs intracochlear microcirculation and counteracts iNOS induction in guinea pigs

Introduction

Preservation of residual hearing remains a great challenge during cochlear implantation. Cochlear implant (CI) electrode array insertion induces changes in the microvasculature as well as nitric oxide (NO)-dependent vessel dysfunction which have been identified as possible mediators of residual hearing loss after cochlear implantation.

Methods

A total of 24 guinea pigs were randomized to receive either a CI (n = 12) or a sham procedure (sham) by performing a cochleostomy without electrode array insertion (n = 12). The hearing threshold was determined using frequency-specific compound action potentials. To gain visual access to the stria vascularis, a microscopic window was created in the osseous cochlear lateral wall. Cochlear blood flow (CBF) and cochlear microvascular permeability (CMP) were evaluated immediately after treatment, as well as after 1 and 2 h, respectively. Finally, cochleae were resected for subsequent immunohistochemical analysis of the iNOS expression.

Results

The sham control group showed no change in mean CBF after 1 h (104.2 ± 0.7%) and 2 h (100.8 ± 3.6%) compared to baseline. In contrast, cochlear implantation resulted in a significant continuous decrease in CBF after 1 h (78.8 ± 8.1%, p < 0.001) and 2 h (60.6 ± 11.3%, p < 0.001). Additionally, the CI group exhibited a significantly increased CMP (+44.9% compared to baseline, p < 0.0001) and a significant increase in median hearing threshold (20.4 vs. 2.5 dB SPL, p = 0.0009) compared to sham after 2 h. Intriguingly, the CI group showed significantly lower iNOS-expression levels in the organ of Corti (329.5 vs. 54.33 AU, p = 0.0003), stria vascularis (596.7 vs. 48.51 AU, p < 0.0001), interdental cells (564.0 vs. 109.1 AU, p = 0.0003) and limbus fibrocytes (119.4 vs. 18.69 AU, p = 0.0286).

Conclusion

Mechanical and NO-dependent microvascular dysfunction seem to play a pivotal role in residual hearing loss after CI electrode array insertion. This may be facilitated by the implantation associated decrease in iNOS expression. Therefore, stabilization of cochlear microcirculation could be a therapeutic strategy to preserve residual hearing.

Mythbusters! The Truth about Common Misconceptions in Cochlear Implantation

Cochlear implantation (CI) is the preferred method of hearing rehabilitation when patients cannot perform well with traditional amplification. Unfortunately, there are still significant misconceptions around this life-changing intervention. The goal of this article is to address some of the most common myths around CI surgery. After reading this article, the learner will be able to explain the utility of CI in patients with residual hearing and recognize that insurance coverage is widespread. The reader will be able to list common risks associated with this well-tolerated procedure including anesthetic risk and the risk of vestibular dysfunction. Additionally, the reader will be able to identify the significant positive impact of CI on patients' quality of life. Finally, the reader will identify that many patients can safely have an MRI scan after implantation, including nearly all contemporary recipients.