Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation

A simple tool to automate the insertion process in cochlear implant surgery

Purpose

Automated insertion of electrode arrays (EA) in cochlear implant surgery is presumed to be less traumatic than manual insertions, but no tool is widely available in the operating room. We sought (1) to design and create a simple tool able to automate the EA insertion process; and (2) to perform preliminary evaluations of the designed prototype.

Methods

A first prototype of a tool with maximum simplicity was designed and fabricated to take advantage of hydraulic actuation. The prototype facilitates automated forward motion using a syringe connected to an infusion pump. Initial prototype evaluation included: (1) testing of forward motion at different velocities (2) EA insertion trials into an artificial cochlear model with force recordings, and (3) evaluation of device handling, fixation and positioning using cadaver head specimens and a surgical retractor. Alignment of the tool was explored with CT imaging.

Results

In this initial phase, the prototype demonstrated easy assembly and ability to respond to hydraulic actuation driven by an infusion pump at different velocities. EA insertions at an ultra-slow velocity of 0.03 mm/s revealed smooth force profiles with mean maximum force of 0.060 N ± 0.007 N. Device positioning with an appropriate insertion axis into the cochlea was deemed feasible and easy to achieve.

Conclusions

Initial testing of our hydraulic insertion tool did not reveal any serious complications that contradict the initially defined design specifications. Further meticulous testing is needed to determine the safety of the device, its reliability and clinical applicability.

Evaluating inter-aural hearing preservation in bilateral paediatric cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE

To examine inter-aural hearing preservation results in children undergoing simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI).

METHODS

Retrospective case review in tertiary referral centre. All children undergoing simultaneous bilateral CI between January 2013 and June 2014 (18 months). Patients eligible for inclusion in the study had pre-operative hearing thresholds of <90 dB at 250 Hz and ≥100 dB at 500 Hz. Patients with anatomical cochlear anomalies or missing data were excluded. Seven patients were included, 1 male, 6 female, mean age of 12 years 11 months at the time of surgery. All patients had simultaneous bilateral cochlear implant surgery, using the same implant and technique. All patients had pre- and post-operative unaided pure tone audiometry. Inter-aural hearing preservation results were compared in each patient.

RESULTS

The achieved hearing preservation for 14 ears was complete in 5, partial in 7, and minimal in 2. Measurable hearing preservation was achieved in 86% overall. Inter-aural analysis revealed that only 2 (subjects 1 and 4) of the 7 patients had preservation results within the same preservation group (complete/partial/minimal). The mean inter-aural preservation difference was 30.7% with a range from 12.4% to 65.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors and techniques have already been identified in the wider literature to explain differences in hearing preservation results in CI. However, despite controlling for known factors, we demonstrate variable inter-aural results. This suggests that there may be more factors beyond the surgeon's control influencing our ability to provide consistent results.