Hearing Preservation Outcomes With Standard Length Electrodes in Adult Cochlear Implantation and the Uptake of Electroacoustic Stimulation

Predicting Postoperative Speech Perception and Audiometric Thresholds Using Intracochlear Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Recipients

OBJECTIVES

Electrocochleography (ECochG) appears to offer the most accurate prediction of post-cochlear implant hearing outcomes. This may be related to its capacity to interrogate the health of underlying cochlear tissue. The four major components of ECochG (cochlear microphonic [CM], summating potential [SP], compound action potential [CAP], and auditory nerve neurophonic [ANN]) are generated by different cochlear tissue components. Analyzing characteristics of these components can reveal the state of hair and neural cell in a cochlea. There is limited evidence on the characteristics of intracochlear (IC) ECochG recordings measured across the array postinsertion but compared with extracochlear recordings has better signal to noise ratio and spatial specificity. The present study aimed to examine the relationship between ECochG components recorded from an IC approach and postoperative speech perception or audiometric thresholds.

DESIGN

In 113 human subjects, responses to 500 Hz tone bursts were recorded at 11 IC electrodes across a 22-electrode cochlear implant array immediately following insertion. Responses to condensation and rarefaction stimuli were then subtracted from one another to emphasize the CM and added to one another to emphasize the SP, ANN, and CAP. Maximum amplitudes and extracochlear electrode locations were recorded for each of these ECochG components. These were added stepwise to a multi-factor generalized additive model to develop a best-fit model predictive model for pure-tone audiometric thresholds (PTA) and speech perception scores (speech recognition threshold [SRT] and consonant-vowel-consonant phoneme [CVC-P]) at 3- and 12-month postoperative timepoints. This best-fit model was tested against a generalized additive model using clinical factors alone (preoperative score, age, and gender) as a null model proxy.

RESULTS

ECochG-factor models were superior to clinical factor models in predicting postoperative PTA, CVC-P, and SRT outcomes at both timepoints. Clinical factor models explained a moderate amount of PTA variance ( r2 = 45.9% at 3-month, 31.8% at 12-month, both p < 0.001) and smaller variances of CVC-P and SRT ( r2 range = 6 to 13.7%, p = 0.008 to 0.113). Age was not a significant predictive factor. ECochG models explained more variance at the 12-month timepoint ( r2 for PTA = 52.9%, CVC-P = 39.6%, SRT = 36.4%) compared with the 3-month one timepoint ( r2 for PTA = 49.4%, CVC-P = 26.5%, SRT = 22.3%). The ECochG model was based on three factors: maximum SP deflection amplitude, and electrode position of CM and SP peaks. Adding neural (ANN and/or CAP) factors to the model did not improve variance explanation. Large negative SP deflection was associated with poorer outcomes and a large positive SP deflection with better postoperative outcomes. Mid-array peaks of SP and CM were both associated with poorer outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Postinsertion IC-ECochG recordings across the array can explain a moderate amount of postoperative speech perception and audiometric thresholds. Maximum SP deflection and its location across the array appear to have a significant predictive value which may reflect the underlying state of cochlear health.

Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities associated with access to cochlear implantation for severe-to-profound hearing loss: A multicentre observational study of UK adults

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants). Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity. Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p < 0·001), were male (females 1·52; [1·27, 1·81]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·97; [0·96, 0·97]; p < 0·001). They were less likely to be informed of their potential eligibility if they lived in more deprived areas (4th (1·99; [1·49, 2·66]; p < 0·001), 5th (1·75; [1·31, 2·33], p < 0·001), 6th (1·85; [1·39, 2·45]; p < 0·001), 7th (1·66; [1·25, 2·21]; p < 0·001), and 8th (1·74; [1·31, 2·31]; p < 0·001) deciles), the North of England or London (North 0·74; [0·62, 0·89]; p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p < 0·001), were of Asian or black ethnic backgrounds compared to white patients (Asian 0·58; [0·43, 0·79]; p < 0·001; black 0·56; [0·34, 0·92]; p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·98; [0·98, 0·98]; p < 0·001). The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.

Word Recognition with a Cochlear Implant in Relation to Prediction and Electrode Position

BACKGROUND

the word recognition score (WRS) achieved with cochlear implants (CIs) varies widely. To account for this, a predictive model was developed based on patients' age and their pre-operative WRS. This retrospective study aimed to find out whether the insertion depth of the nucleus lateral-wall electrode arrays contributes to the deviation of the CI-achieved WRS from the predicted WRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

patients with a pre-operative maximum WRS > 0 or a pure-tone audiogram ≥80 dB were included. The insertion depth was determined via digital volume tomography.

RESULTS

fifty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. The median WRS achieved with the CI was 70%. The comparison of pre- and post-operative scores achieved with a hearing aid and a CI respectively in the aided condition showed a median improvement of 65 percentage points (pp). A total of 90% of the patients improved by at least 20 pp. The majority of patients reached or exceeded the prediction, with a median absolute error of 11 pp. No significant correlation was found between the deviation from the predicted WRS and the insertion depth.

CONCLUSIONS

our data support a previously published model for the prediction of the WRS after cochlear implantation. For the lateral-wall electrode arrays evaluated, the insertion depth did not influence the WRS with a CI.

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.

Conversations in Cochlear Implantation: The Inner Ear Therapy of Today

As biomolecular approaches for hearing restoration in profound sensorineural hearing loss evolve, they will be applied in conjunction with or instead of cochlear implants. An understanding of the current state-of-the-art of this technology, including its advantages, disadvantages, and its potential for delivering and interacting with biomolecular hearing restoration approaches, is helpful for designing modern hearing-restoration strategies. Cochlear implants (CI) have evolved over the last four decades to restore hearing more effectively, in more people, with diverse indications. This evolution has been driven by advances in technology, surgery, and healthcare delivery. Here, we offer a practical treatise on the state of cochlear implantation directed towards developing the next generation of inner ear therapeutics. We aim to capture and distill conversations ongoing in CI research, development, and clinical management. In this review, we discuss successes and physiological constraints of hearing with an implant, common surgical approaches and electrode arrays, new indications and outcome measures for implantation, and barriers to CI utilization. Additionally, we compare cochlear implantation with biomolecular and pharmacological approaches, consider strategies to combine these approaches, and identify unmet medical needs with cochlear implants. The strengths and weaknesses of modern implantation highlighted here can mark opportunities for continued progress or improvement in the design and delivery of the next generation of inner ear therapeutics.

National study of hearing preservation rates and outcomes after cochlear implantation in Ireland

OBJECTIVE

To study the rate of hearing preservation and outcomes of hearing preservation candidates in a national cochlear implant centre. The HEARRING criteria was used.

METHODS

All cochlear implant candidates with preserved low frequency pure tone average (PTA) were included. All patients underwent cochlear implantation using a standard 'soft-surgery' technique. PTA was assessed at switch-on, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was hearing preservation at 12 months.

RESULTS

Sixty six patients were included in the study between 2015 and 2020. Seventy one ears were implanted including 33 adults and 33 children with 5 bilateral implantations. Mean preoperative PTA was 74.8 dB (range 52.3-92 dB), mean postoperative PTA was 95.3 dB corresponding to a mean shift of 20.5 dB. In the adult population, HP rates were as follows: complete HP in 13%, partial HP in 39.1%, minimal HP in 30.4%, loss of hearing in 17.4%. In the paediatric population: complete HP in 20.7%, partial HP in 51.7%, minimal HP in 13.8% and loss of hearing in 13.8%. After the initial postoperative shift, there was no significant worsening of residual hearing during follow-up between 3 and 12 months. There were no significant prognostic factors for hearing preservation.

CONCLUSION

Hearing preservation rates using the HEARRING criteria are described. This study will help counselling and decision making in patients eligible for cochlear implantation with hearing preservation. Further studies are required to assess the performances and outcomes of electronatural and electroacoustic stimulation.

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.