Cochlear implantation and residual hearing preservation long-term follow-up of the first consecutively operated patients using the round window approach in Uppsala, Sweden

Can an individual with low frequency hearing in the candidate ear benefit from a cochlear implant even if they have normal hearing in the other ear?

PURPOSE

To determine hearing preservation and subjective benefit after cochlear implant (CI) surgery in patients with low frequency hearing in the ear to be implanted (i.e., they have partial deafness, PD) and close to normal hearing in the other.

METHODS

There were two study groups. The test group was made up of 12 adult patients (mean age 43.4 years; SD 13.6) with normal hearing or mild hearing loss in one ear, and with PD in the ear to be implanted. The reference group consisted of 12 adult patients (mean age 44.5 years; SD 14.1) who had PD in both ears and who underwent unilateral implantation in their worse ear. Hearing preservation was assessed 1 and 14 months after CI surgery using the Skarzynski Hearing Preservation Classification System. The APHAB questionnaire was used to evaluate the benefit from the CI.

RESULTS

The differences in HP% between the groups were not significant: mean hearing preservation (HP%) in the test group was 82% one month after CI surgery and 75% some 14 months after implantation; corresponding results in the reference group were 71% and 69%. However, on the APHAB background noise subscale, the benefit in the test group was significantly larger than in the reference group.

CONCLUSION

To a large extent it was possible to preserve low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear. This means that individuals with low frequency hearing in the implanted ear (partial deafness) and with normal hearing in the other generally received more benefits from cochlear implantation than did patients with partial deafness in both ears. We conclude that residual low frequency hearing in the ear to be implanted should not be considered a contraindication for a CI in a patient with single-sided deafness.

Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation Using FLEX26 Electrode: Audiological Results and Quality of Life after 12 Months

INTRODUCTION

The electrode length is one of the many factors impacted on results of cochlear implantation. Among lateral wall flexible electrode arrays the latest one is FLEX26 (MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria). The main aim of the study was to evaluate the preservation of residual hearing, the level of speech understanding, and quality of life after cochlear implantation with FLEX26 electrode array.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral centre. Fifty-two patients implanted unilaterally with FLEX26, including 10 EAS patients (electric acoustic stimulation) and 42 ES patients (electric stimulation). The intervention was minimally invasive cochlear implantation via the round window. Pure-tone audiometry (0.125-8 kHz) was performed preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Twelve-month hearing preservation was established using HEARRING group formula. Quality of life was measured with AQoL-8D (Assessment of Quality of Life-8 Dimensions) pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Residual hearing was preserved in 88.8% EAS patients. Quality of life was significantly better postoperatively in comparison to preoperative period (the effect size for overall quality of life was 0.49). Especially, it increased in relationships and senses dimensions (the effect sizes 0.47 and 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Preservation of residual hearing can be achieved in the majority of patients implanted with FLEX26. Improvement of quality of life was also documented. FLEX26 seems to be an option for surgeons who seek an electrode providing sufficient cochlear coverage.

One Year Assessment of the Hearing Preservation Potential of the EVO Electrode Array

Background: A prospective longitudinal multicentre study was conducted to assess the one-year postsurgical hearing preservation profile of the EVO^TM electrode array. Methods: Fifteen adults presenting indications of electro-acoustic stimulation (pure-tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds ≤70 dB below 750 Hz) were implanted with the EVO™ electrode array. Hearing thresholds were collected at five time-points from CI activation to twelve months (12M) after activation. Hearing thresholds and hearing preservation profiles (HEARRING group classification) were assessed. Results: All subjects had measurable hearing thresholds at follow-up. No case of complete loss of hearing or minimal hearing preservation was reported at any time point. At activation (N_act = 15), five participants had complete hearing preservation, and ten participants had partial hearing preservation. At the 12M time point (N_12m = 6), three participants had complete hearing preservation, and three participants had partial hearing preservation. Mean hearing loss at activation was 11 dB for full range PTA and 25 dB for PTAs low-frequency (125–500 Hz). Conclusions: This study provides the first longitudinal follow-up on associated hearing profiles to the EVO™ electrode array, which are comparable to the literature. However, other studies on larger populations should be performed.