Audiologic Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Cochlear Malformations: A Comparative Analysis of Lateral Wall and Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays

Management of Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays Misplaced in the Internal Auditory Canal: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Misplacement of electrode arrays in the internal auditory canal (IAC) presents a unique clinical challenge. Speech recognition is limited for cochlear implant (CI) users with misplaced arrays, and there are risks with revision surgery including facial and/or cochlear nerve injury.

DATABASES REVIEWED

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from inception to September 2023. The search terms were designed to capture articles on misplaced arrays and the management options. Articles written in English that described cases of array misplacement into the IAC for children and adults were included. The level of evidence was assessed using Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight cases of arrays misplaced in the IAC were identified. Thirteen (46%) were patients with incomplete partition type 3 (IP3), and 7 (25%) were patients with common cavity (CC) malformations. Most misplaced arrays were identified postoperatively (19 cases; 68%). Of these cases, 11 (58%) were managed with array removal. No facial nerve injuries were reported with revision surgery. Eight cases (42%) were left in place. Several underwent mapping procedures in an attempt improve the sound quality with the CI.

CONCLUSION

Electrode array misplacement in the IAC is a rare complication that reportedly occurs predominately in cases with IP3 and CC malformations. Removal of misplaced arrays from the IAC reportedly has not been associated with facial nerve injuries. Cases identified with IAC misplacement postoperatively can potentially be managed with modified mapping techniques before proceeding with revision surgery.

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 in adults and pediatrics with enlarged vestibular aqueduct: a systematic review on the surgical findings and patients' performance

PURPOSE

Cochlear implantation (CI) has been considered a safe and effective management option for patients with severe to profound hearing loss. Patients with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) could be challenging with some variations in surgical approaches, intraoperative surgical notes, and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to  review the surgical and clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation among patients with EVA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out in five major databases. All original studies reporting cochlear implantation in patients with EVA were included for qualitative data synthesis. The risk of bias was independently assessed through the National Intuitional of Health tool. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42021225900).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies with 4035 subjects were included. Of them, 853 (21.14%) had EVA and underwent CI. Mondini malformation was the most frequently associated anomaly (n = 78, 11.1%). Unilateral implantation was performed in 258 cases while bilateral in 119 subjects. Postoperative complications included CSF/perilymph gusher (n = 112), CSF oozing (n = 18), and partial electrode insertion (n = 6). Closing the cochleostomy with temporalis fascia, muscle, connective tissue, or fibrin glue was the most frequently reported approach to manage CSF/perilymph gusher (n = 67, 56.7%) while packing was performed in six patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with EVA demonstrated audiometric and speech performance improvement after CI. However, many patients had intra- or postoperative complications. Further research is needed as the outcomes may be affected by associated temporal bone pathology, the timing of implant, and hearing condition.

Speech Recognition Performance Differences Between Precurved and Straight Electrode Arrays From a Single Manufacturer

OBJECTIVE

Precurved cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays have demonstrated superior audiometric outcomes compared with straight electrodes in a handful of studies. However, previous comparisons have often failed to account for preoperative hearing and age. This study compares hearing outcomes for precurved and straight electrodes by a single manufacturer while controlling for these and other factors in a large cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Two hundred thirty-one adult CI recipients between 2015 and 2021 with cochlear (Sydney, Australia) 522/622 (straight) or 532/632 (precurved) electrode arrays.

INTERVENTIONS

Postactivation speech recognition and audiometric testing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Speech recognition testing (consonant-nucleus-consonant word [CNCw] and AzBio) was collected at 6 and 12 months postactivation. Hearing preservation was characterized by a low-frequency pure-tone average shift, or the change between preoperative and postoperative low-frequency pure-tone average.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-one patients (253 ears) with 6-month and/or 12-month CNCw or AzBio testing were included. One hundred forty-nine (59%) and 104 (41%) ears were implanted with straight and precurved electrode arrays, respectively. Average age at implantation was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-77 y). There was no significant difference in mean age between groups. CNCw scores were significantly different ( p = 0.001) between straight (51%; IQR, 36-67%) and precurved arrays (64%; IQR, 48-72%). AzBio scores were not significantly different ( p = 0.081) between straight (72%; IQR, 51-87%) and precurved arrays (81%; IQR, 57-90%). Controlling for age, race, sex, preoperative hearing, and follow-up time, precurved electrode arrays performed significantly better on CNCw (b = 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-16.0; p < 0.001) and AzBio (b = 8.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-16.0;, p = 0.014) testing. Hearing preservation was not different between electrodes on adjusted models.

CONCLUSION

During the study period, patients undergoing placement of precurved electrode arrays had significantly higher CNC and AzBio scores than patients receiving straight electrodes, even after controlling for age, preoperative hearing, and follow-up time.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GAP AND EDUCATIONAL NEED

Understanding the difference in audiometric outcomes between precurved and straight electrode arrays will help to guide electrode selection.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

To understand differences in speech recognition scores postoperatively by electrode array type (precurved versus straight).

DESIRED RESULT

To demonstrate a difference in hearing performance postoperatively by electrode type.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

INDICATE IRB OR IACUC

Approved by the Institutional IRB (090155).

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear malformations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss due to inner ear malformations (IEMs) when compared to patients without IEMs. We discussed audiological outcomes such as open-set testing, closed-set testing, CAP score, and SIR score as well as postoperative outcomes such as cerebrospinal fluid gusher and incomplete insertion rate associated with cochlear implantation in individuals with IEMs.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases.

REVIEW METHODS

After screening a total of 222 studies, twelve eligible original articles were included in the review to analyze the speech and hearing outcomes of implanted patients with IEMs. Five reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. The "Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies" published by the CLARITY group was used to perform quality assessment on eligible studies. Systematic review registration number: CRD42021237489.

RESULTS

IEMs are more likely to be associated with abnormal position of the facial nerve, raising the risk of intraoperative complications. These patients may benefit from cochlear implantation, but audiological outcomes may also be less favorable than in individuals without IEMs. Furthermore, due to the risk of cerebrospinal fluid gusher, incomplete insertion of electrodes, and postoperative facial nerve stimulation, surgeons can employ precautionary measures such as preoperative imaging and proper counseling. Postoperative imaging is suggested to be beneficial in ensuring proper electrode placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implants (CIs) have the potential to provide auditory rehabilitation to individuals with IEMs. Precise classification of the malformation, preoperative imaging and anatomical mapping, appropriate electrode selection, intra-operative techniques, and postoperative imaging are recommended in this population.

Cochlear base length as predictor for angular insertion depth in incomplete partition type 2 malformations

INTRODUCTION

The preoperative determination of suitable electrode array lengths for cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations is a matter of debate. The choice is usually based on individual experience and the use of intraoperative probe electrodes. The purpose of this case series was to evaluate the applicability and precision of an angular insertion depth (AID) prediction method, based on a single measurement of the cochlear base length (CBL).

METHODS

We retrospectively measured the CBL in preoperative computed tomography (CT) images in 10 ears (8 patients) with incomplete partition type 2 malformation. With the known electrode length (linear insertion depth, LID) the AID at full insertion was retrospectively predicted for each ear with a heuristic equation derived from non-malformed cochleae. Using the intra- or post-implantation cone beam CT images, the actual AID was assessed and compared. The deviations of the predicted from the actual insertion angles were quantified (clinical prediction error) to assess the precision of this single-measure estimation.

RESULTS

Electrode arrays with 15 mm (n = 3), 19 mm (n = 2), 24 mm (n = 3), and 26 mm (n = 2) length were implanted. Postoperative AIDs ranged from 211° to 625°. Clinical AID prediction errors from -64° to 62° were observed with a mean of 0° (SD of 44°). In two ears with partial insertion of the electrode, the predicted AID was overestimated. The probe electrode was intraoperatively used in 9/10 cases.

CONCLUSION

The analyzed method provides good predictions of the AID based on LID and CBL. It does not account for incomplete insertions, which lead to an overestimation of the AID. The probe electrode is useful and well established in clinical practice. The investigated method could be used for patient-specific electrode length selection in future patients.