The effect of tinnitus specific intracochlear stimulation on speech perception in patients with unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss accompanied with tinnitus and the effect of formal auditory training

Postoperative optimization of cochlear implantation for single sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of methods for improving postoperative cochlear implant (CI) hearing performance in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed, Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. English language studies of adult CI recipients with SSD and AHL reporting a postoperative intervention and comparative audiometric data pertaining to speech in noise, speech in quiet and sound localization were included.

RESULTS

32 studies met criteria for full text review and 6 (n = 81) met final inclusion criteria. Interventions were categorized as: formal auditory training, programming techniques, or hardware optimization. Formal auditory training (n = 10) found no objective improvement in hearing outcomes. Experimental CI maps did not improve audiologic outcomes (n = 9). Programed CI signal delays to improve synchronization demonstrated improved sound localization (n = 12). Hardware optimization, including multidirectional (n = 29) and remote (n = 11) microphones, improved sound localization and speech in noise, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Few studies meeting inclusion criteria and small sample sizes highlight the need for further study. Formal auditory training did not appear to improve hearing outcomes. Programming techniques, such as CI signal delay, and hardware optimization, such as multidirectional and remote microphones, show promise to improve outcomes for SSD and AHL CI users.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Aural Rehabilitation for Adults With Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss poses a significant public health challenge as a common chronic condition with many known side effects that are often worse when left untreated. Aural rehabilitation (AR) is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of interventions (e.g., informational counseling and perceptual training) designed to reduce deficits related to hearing loss that may stand alone or be used in combination as part of a holistic plan.

PURPOSE

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline is intended to inform the implementation of person-centered AR to adults with hearing loss. Given the well-known benefits of sensory management, it was not included within the scope of this guideline. The recommendations aim to help clinicians, individuals with hearing loss, and other stakeholders make evidence-informed treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes, as well as provide payers and policymakers with information detailing a comprehensive approach to AR.

METHOD

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and a multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts prioritized key clinical questions and outcomes that served as the foundation of the guideline. The clinical recommendations were based on a comprehensive systematic review and a meta-analysis of 85 studies published between 1978 and 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the current state of the evidence, resource considerations, patient acceptability, clinical feasibility, and the overall balance of benefits and harms, ASHA developed several evidence-based recommendations for the provision of AR to adults with hearing loss. Each recommendation is accompanied by a series of key practice points to support its implementation within a person-centered framework.

Systematic Review on Intra- and Extracochlear Electrical Stimulation for Tinnitus

Several electrical stimulation patterns of the auditory nerve have been described for tinnitus relief, but there is no consensus on the most effective stimulation pattern. Therefore, we aim to systematically review the literature on the effect of intra- and extracochlear electrical stimulation patterns as a treatment option for patients with tinnitus. Only studies on intra- and extracochlear electrical stimulation for patients with tinnitus were included if the stimulation used did not concern standardized CI stimulation patterns to primarily rehabilitate hearing loss as intervention. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 10 studies (89 patients) on intracochlear electrical stimulation and 25 studies on extracochlear electrical stimulation (1109 patients). There was a high to medium risk of bias in 22 studies, especially due to lack of a non-exposed group and poor selection of the exposed group. All included studies showed subjective tinnitus improvement during or after electrical stimulation, using different stimulation patterns. Due to methodological limitations and low reporting quality of the included studies, the potential of intra- and extracochlear stimulation has not been fully explored. To draw conclusions on which stimulation patterns should be optimized for tinnitus relief, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved in tinnitus suppression is needed.

Cochlear implantation for patients with tinnitus - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cochlear implantation (CI) is used in patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss when hearing aids provide limited or no benefit for speech perception. Studies on this topic reported tinnitus reduction as a common side effect of the electrical activation after cochlear implantation. So far, it is unclear what the effect is when patients do receive their implant primarily because of tinnitus complaints.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of the electrical stimulation with a cochlear implant in patients with tinnitus as a primary complaint, by systematically reviewing the literature.

METHODS

Two independent authors identified studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Original studies reporting outcomes of electrical stimulation by cochlear implantation for primarily tinnitus (defined as severe or incapacitating distress levels) were included, if they reported a follow-up of at least three months. The pre- and post-implantation tinnitus distress scores on single and/or multi-item questionnaires of the included studies were extracted.

RESULTS

In total, 4091 unique articles were retrieved. After screening titles, abstracts and full texts, we included seven prospective cohort studies (105 subjects in total, range: 10-26). All studies had considerable risks of bias. All tinnitus patients in the included studies had asymmetrical hearing loss or single-sided deafness. A statistically significant tinnitus distress improvement based on tinnitus questionnaire scores was found in every study.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review reveals that electrical stimulation by cochlear implants in patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus has a positive impact on tinnitus distress. Nevertheless, only small sample sizes were found and studies showed considerable risks of bias.^a.

The case for cochlear implantation in unilateral and asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cochlear implants have been used to treat bilateral deafness for over 40 years. A more recent development has been the application of this technology toward single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), culminating in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in the United States for this indication in July of 2019. This review examines the recent literature on cochlear implants for SSD and AHL, focusing on speech perception, sound localization, tinnitus, and quality of life.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is an expanding body of literature supporting the use of cochlear implant in SSD/AHL patients. The cochlear implant offers a unique rehabilitation option for this subset of patients as it potentially restores binaural hearing (direct stimulation of both ears). A review of the literature reveals significant improvements with the cochlear implant in speech perception in quiet and noise, sound localization, tinnitus, and quality of life. In addition, these improvements appear to be greater than what conventional options such as a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid and bone conduction device (BCD) are able to achieve.

SUMMARY

Cochlear implants offer additional benefits over previously available options of CROS and BCDs and have recently been approved by the FDA for use in patient with SSD/AHL. Given the growing body of literature demonstrating the benefit of cochlear implant over other devices, it is important to offer cochlear implant as an option to these patients.

Cochlear implantation in Ménière's disease: a systematic review of literature and pooled analysis

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cochlear implantation (CI) in advanced Ménière's disease (MD).Design: The initial search on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases yielded 171 articles; no language restriction was applied.Study sample: A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Six articles provided patient-level data on improvement in speech recognition testing after CI.Results: The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by examining the study design, level of evidence, method of measurement and adequacy of outcome reporting. A random-effect model was fitted for calculating weighted means. Post-operative improvement in word recognition score (WCS) was 50.8% (95% confidence interval: 34.6-67.1%); general improvement of vestibular symptoms after CI was found in 67% of the pooled patients; when reported in the studies, quality of life (QoL) and tinnitus were also generally improved after CI.Conclusions: CI in advanced MD is a valid option providing good outcomes in terms of speech performances, regardless of the disease duration, uni- or bilaterality, age at implantation, previous therapeutic procedures and stage of activity of MD.