Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Single-sided Deafness: Outcomes and Device Use

Masked Speech Perception with Bone Conduction Device, Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aid, and Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness: A Prospective Hearing Device Comparison using a Unified Testing Framework

INTRODUCTION

For the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD), common treatment choices include a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aid, a bone conduction device (BCD), and a cochlear implant (CI). The primary aim of this study was to compare speech understanding in noise and binaural benefits in adults with postlingual SSD between preoperative unaided baseline, preoperative CROS and BCD trial devices, and CI, following recommendations from a consensus protocol. In addition, we investigated the effect of masker type on speech understanding.

METHODS

This was a prospective study with twelve participants. Binaural effects of head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking were assessed by measuring speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in five different spatial target-masker configurations using two different maskers: two-talker babble (TTB), and speech-shaped noise (SSN). Preoperatively, participants were assessed unaided and with CROS and BCD trial devices. After cochlear implantation, participants were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation.

RESULTS

For TTB, significant improvements in SRT with a CI relative to preoperatively unaided were found in all spatial configurations. With CI at 6 months, median benefits were 7.8 dB in SSSDNAH and 5.1 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 3.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), and 4.6 dB in S0NSSD and 5.1 dB in SAHNSSD (squelch). CROS yielded a significant head shadow benefit of 2.4 dB in SSSDNAH and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.5 dB in S0NSSD and SAHNSSD, but no summation effect. With BCD, there was a significant summation benefit of 1.5 dB, but no head shadow nor squelch effect. For SSN, significant improvements in SRT with CI compared to preoperatively unaided were found in three spatial configurations. Median benefits with CI at 6 months were: 8.5 dB in SSSDNAH and 4.6 dB in S0NAH (head shadow), 1.4 dB in S0N0 (summation), but no squelch. CROS showed a significant head shadow benefit of 1.7 dB in SSSDNAH, but no summation effect, and a significant deterioration in squelch of 2.9 dB in S0NSSD and 3.2 dB in SAHNSSD. With BCD, no binaural effect was obtained. Longitudinally, we found significant head shadow benefits with a CI in SSSDNAH in both maskers at all postoperative intervals and in S0NAH at 3 and 6 months post-activation.

CONCLUSION

With a CI, a clear benefit for masked speech perception was observed for all binaural effects. Benefits with CROS and BCD were more limited. CROS usage was detrimental to the squelch effect.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force: Recommendations for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded over time due to evidence demonstrating identification and implantation of appropriate cochlear implant (CI) candidates lead to significant improvements in speech recognition and quality of life (QoL). However, clinical practice is variable, with some providers using outdated criteria and others exceeding current labeled indications. As a results, only a fraction of those persons who could benefit from CI technology receive it. This document summarizes the current evidence for determining appropriate referrals for adults with bilateral hearing loss into CI centers for formal evaluation by stressing the importance of treating each ear individually and a "revised 60/60 rule". By mirroring contemporary clinical practice and available evidence, these recommendations will also provide a standardized testing protocol for CI candidates using a team-based approach that prioritizes individualized patient care. This manuscript was developed by the Adult Cochlear Implantation Candidacy Task Force of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance using review of the existing literature and clinical consensus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:S1-S14, 2024.

Influence of listening environment on usage patterns in cochlear implant patients with single-sided deafness

OBJECTIVE

To compare cochlear implant (CI) data logging of patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (biSNHL) in various acoustic environments and study the implications of data logging on auditory performance.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case control study.

METHODS

Adult CI patients with SSD or biSNHL from 2010 to 2021 with usage data collected at 3-, 6-, and 12-months following device activation were identified. The CI listening environment was defined as speech in noise, speech in quiet, quiet, music or noise. Auditory performance was measured using the CNC word, AzBio sentence tests and the Tinnitus Handicap Index (THI).

RESULTS

60 adults with SSD or biSNHL were included. CI patients with biSNHL wore their devices more than those with SSD at 3-months post-activation (11.18 versus 8.97 hours/day, p = 0.04), though there were no significant differences at 6-12 months. Device usage was highest in the speech in quiet environment. In SSD CI users, there was a positive correlation (p = 0.03) between device use and CNC scores at 12-months and an improvement in THI scores at 12-months (p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

CI users with SSD and biSNHL have comparable duration of device usage at longer follow-up periods with greatest device usage recorded in speech in quiet environments.

Cochlear Implants for Single-Sided Deafness: Quality of Life, Daily Usage, and Duration of Deafness

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience for adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series for adults with SSD who underwent CI between January 2013 and May 2021 at our institution. CNC and AzBio speech recognition scores, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12), datalogging, and the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-10 Global measure were utilized.

RESULTS

Sixty-six adults underwent CI for SSD (median 51.3 years, range 20.0-74.3 years), and 57 (86.4%) remained device users at last follow-up. Compared to pre-operative performance, device users demonstrated significant improvement in speech recognition scores and achieved peak performance at six months post-activation for CNC (8.0% increased to 45.6%, p < 0.0001) and AzBio in quiet (12.2% increased to 59.5%, p < 0.0001). THI was decreased at 6 months post-implantation (58.1-14.6, p < 0.0001), with 77% of patients reporting improved or resolved tinnitus. Patients demonstrated improved SSQ12 scores as well as the disease-specific CIQOL-10 Global questionnaire. Duration of deafness was not associated with significant differences in speech recognition performance. Average daily wear time was positively associated with CNC and AzBio scores as well as post-operative CIQOL-10 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Herein we present the largest cohort of adult CI recipients with SSD with data on speech recognition scores, tinnitus measures, and SSQ12. Novel insights regarding the correlation of datalogging, duration of deafness, and CI-specific quality of life (CIQOL-10) metrics are discussed. Data continue to support CI as an efficacious treatment option for SSD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 133:2362-2370, 2023.

Speech Perception in Noise and Sound Localization for Cochlear Implant With Single-Sided Deafness Compared With Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD) is a relatively new treatment modality. Although comparing the effectiveness of CI and contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids (HAs) is important, very few reports on this topic exist. In this study, objective assessments and subjective assessments were conducted to determine which SSD individuals would prefer CI or CROS HAs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Objective assessments (speech perception and sound localization) and subjective assessments (Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), MOS Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2)) were performed on 87 SSD patients. Of the 87 SSD patients, 33 patients hoped for CROS HAs, and 17 patients hoped for CI. The CI group underwent subjective and objective assessments at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The CROS HAs group underwent objective assessments at 1 month after wearing CROS HAs.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the localization ability was significantly improved in the CI group (p < 0.05) with no significant improvement in that of the CROS HAs group (p = 0.48). No significant improvement in speech perception in noise was observed in the CROS (Signal-to-Noise ratio + 10, p = 0.08; SN + 0, p = 0.17); however, a significant improvement in the CI group was observed at 12 months postoperatively. The APHAB subscale "background noise" and SF-36v2 health concepts of role-physical, general health, vitality, role-emotional, and mental health were significantly higher in the CI group.

CONCLUSION

CI was superior to CROS HAs in speech perception in terms of noise and sound localization. Patients with postlingual acute-onset hearing loss and more handicaps and a more positive view of their hearing loss possibly tend to choose CI.

Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Adults With Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who underwent cochlear implantation.

DATABASES REVIEWED

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

Studies reporting spatial hearing, tinnitus, and quality-of-life outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients (≥18 yr old) with SSD were evaluated. Study characteristics, demographic data, spatial hearing (speech recognition in noise, sound source localization), tinnitus (severity, loudness), and quality-of-life outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

From an initial search of 1,147 articles, 36 studies that evaluated CI use in 796 unique adults with SSD (51.3 ± 12.4 yr of age at time of implantation) were included. The mean duration of deafness was 6.2 ± 9.6 years. There was evidence of improvement for speech recognition in noise using different target-to-masker spatial configurations, with the largest benefit observed for target-to-masker configurations assessing head shadow (mean, 1.87-6.2 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Sound source localization, quantified as root-mean-squared error, improved with CI use (mean difference [MD], -25.3 degrees; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -35.9 to -14.6 degrees; p < 0.001). Also, CI users reported a significant reduction in tinnitus severity as measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (MD, -29.97; 95% CI, -43.9 to -16.1; p < 0.001) and an improvement in spatial hearing abilities as measured with the Spatial, Speech, and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation and CI use consistently offer improvements in speech recognition in noise, sound source localization, tinnitus, and perceived quality of life in adults with SSD.

Resection of Intracochlear Schwannomas With Immediate Cochlear Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Intralabyrinthine schwannomas, including the intracochlear variety, are rare benign tumors. They can cause a number of symptoms and have the potential to grow to involve other critical structures of the inner ear and skull base. While surgical resection is feasible, there is typically permanent hearing dysfunction as a result of resection and subsequent fibrosis. Here, we present 2 cases of intracochlear schwannomas (ICS) that were successfully resected with simultaneous cochlear implant placement.

METHODS

Patient 1 presented with an intravestibulocochlear schwannoma. This patient underwent a translabyrinthine approach. Endoscopic assistance was used to dissect the tumor from the vestibule and basal turn of the cochlea, through an enlarged round window approach. A cochlear implant was placed via a round window cochleostomy. Patient 2 presented with an intracochlear schwannoma involving the basal and middle turns of the cochlea. The patient underwent a trans-otic approach for resection. A large portion of the cochlear promontory required unroofing for complete exposure of the tumor. A cochlear implant was then placed via a round window cochleostomy.

RESULTS

Upon cochlear implant activation, Patient 1's sound field thresholds using the implant were near the normal range of hearing, ranging from 25 to 50 dB HL from 250 to 6000 Hz. Patient 2's 6-month post-operative cochlear implant sound field testing ranged from 20 to 30 dB HL from 250 to 6000 Hz and speech recognition testing revealed 59% on AZ Bio sentences compared to 0% pre-operatively.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous cochlear implantation after resection of intracochlear schwannomas is safe and successful in restoring hearing. Attention to adequate exposure and endoscopic assistance, when required, allow for gross total resection while minimizing trauma to cochlear structures. In such cases, immediate cochlear implantation allows for hearing rehabilitation before likely cochlear fibrosis can occur.

Prevalence of Cochlear Nerve Deficiency and Hearing Device Use in Children With Single-Sided Deafness

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the prevalence of cochlear nerve deficiency (CND) in a cohort of pediatric patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). A secondary objective was to investigate trends in intervention and hearing device use in these children.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series with chart review.

SETTING

Pediatric tertiary care center.

METHODS

Children ages 0 to 21 years with SSD (N = 190) who underwent computerized tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included. Diagnostic criteria for SSD included unilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with normal hearing sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Diagnostic criteria for CND included neuroradiologist report of an "aplastic or hypoplastic nerve" on MRI or a "stenotic cochlear aperture" on CT.

RESULTS

The prevalence of CND was 42% for children with CT only, 76% for children with MRI only, and 63% for children with both MRI and CT. Of the children with MRI and CT, there was a 90% concordance across imaging modalities. About 36% of children with SSD had hearing devices that routed sound to the normal hearing ear (ie, bone conduction hearing device/contralateral routing of signal), while only 3% received a cochlear implant. Approximately 40% did not have a hearing device. Hearing device wear time averaged 2.9 hours per day and did not differ based on cochlear nerve status.

CONCLUSION

There is a high prevalence of CND in children with SSD. Cochlear nerve status should be confirmed via MRI in children with SSD. The limited implementation and use of hearing devices observed for children with SSD reinforce the need for increased support for early and continuous intervention.

Cochlear Implant Facilitates the Use of Talker Sex and Spatial Cues to Segregate Competing Speech in Unilaterally Deaf Listeners

OBJECTIVES

Talker sex and spatial cues can facilitate segregation of competing speech. However, the spectrotemporal degradation associated with cochlear implants (CIs) can limit the benefit of talker sex and spatial cues. Acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear can improve access to talker sex cues in CI users. However, it's unclear whether the CI can improve segregation of competing speech when maskers are symmetrically placed around the target (i.e., when spatial cues are available), compared with acoustic hearing alone. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a CI can improve segregation of competing speech by individuals with unilateral hearing loss.

DESIGN

Speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for competing speech were measured in 16 normal-hearing (NH) adults and 16 unilaterally deaf CI users. All participants were native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. CI users were divided into two groups according to thresholds in the nonimplanted ear: (1) single-sided deaf (SSD); pure-tone thresholds <25 dB HL at all audiometric frequencies, and (2) Asymmetric hearing loss (AHL; one or more thresholds > 25 dB HL). SRTs were measured for target sentences produced by a male talker in the presence of two masker talkers (different male or female talkers). The target sentence was always presented via loudspeaker directly in front of the listener (0°), and the maskers were either colocated with the target (0°) or spatially separated from the target at ±90°. Three segregation cue conditions were tested to measure masking release (MR) relative to the baseline condition: (1) Talker sex, (2) Spatial, and (3) Talker sex + Spatial. For CI users, SRTs were measured with the CI on or off.

RESULTS

Binaural MR was significantly better for the NH group than for the AHL or SSD groups ( P < 0.001 in all cases). For the NH group, mean MR was largest with the Talker sex + spatial cues (18.8 dB) and smallest for the Talker sex cues (10.7 dB). In contrast, mean MR for the SSD group was largest with the Talker sex + spatial cues (14.7 dB), and smallest with the Spatial cues (4.8 dB). For the AHL group, mean MR was largest with the Talker sex + spatial cues (7.8 dB) and smallest with the Talker sex (4.8 dB) and the Spatial cues (4.8 dB). MR was significantly better with the CI on than off for both the AHL ( P = 0.014) and SSD groups ( P < 0.001). Across all unilaterally deaf CI users, monaural (acoustic ear alone) and binaural MR were significantly correlated with unaided pure-tone average thresholds in the nonimplanted ear for the Talker sex and Talker sex + spatial conditions ( P < 0.001 in both cases) but not for the Spatial condition.

CONCLUSION

Although the CI benefitted unilaterally deaf listeners' segregation of competing speech, MR was much poorer than that observed in NH listeners. Different from previous findings with steady noise maskers, the CI benefit for segregation of competing speech from a different talker sex was greater in the SSD group than in the AHL group.

Cochlear implantation in patients with asymmetric hearing loss: reporting and discussing the benefits in speech perception, speech reception threshold, squelch abilities, and patients’ reported outcomes

Objectives

This study presents the results obtained in a group of patients with asymmetric hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation at our institution. Prognostic factors are discussed in relation to different rehabilitative approaches for asymmetric hearing loss remediation. The current literature is also discussed.

Methods

Nineteen adult patients with post-verbal asymmetric hearing loss were enrolled. The results were assessed by means of a speech perception test, completed in silence and with background noise, and a speech reception threshold test (Oldenburg Sentence Test). The subjectively perceived benefits were assessed using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale.

Results

Statistically significant improvements were achieved by all patients in terms of speech perception and speech reception threshold, and in subjective benefits.

Conclusion

The results confirm the literature findings which suggest that patients with asymmetric hearing loss generally gain substantial benefit from cochlear implantation because of the binaural input, with significant improvement in speech perception abilities in noise, speech reception threshold, and squelch abilities.

(Even Off-Label) Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss Results in Measurable Objective and Subjective Benefit

OBJECTIVE

To quantify objective and subjective outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss, including single-sided deafness (SSD) whose candidacy was determined on an ear-specific basis when word recognition was 50% or less.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of CI in cases of SSD and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) has been described in terms of tinnitus suppression, improved speech recognition in quiet and noise, enhanced localization ability, and improved quality of life. However, CI is not yet routinely offered as a top option or standard of care for these individuals. Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling limits aided word recognition in the ear to be implanted to only 5% in cases of AHL/SSD, which is significantly poorer than 40 to 50%, which is often referenced in cases of bilateral hearing loss. Anecdotal experience suggests that patients with much better preoperative word recognition than 5% can benefit from CI.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all adult CI candidates, with one ear exhibiting consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition scores at least 50% and one ear not meeting CI candidacy (i.e., CNC word recognition >50%). Outcome variables of interest included word and sentence recognition and subjective handicap questionnaires (hearing, tinnitus, dizziness) and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire.

RESULTS

Statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech understanding (word, sentence, sentence in noise) was noted for both the SSD and AHL groups in the implanted ear. There were statistically and clinically significant subjective improvements noted for both groups on the Hearing Handicap Inventory, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire by 1 month after activation. There were no significant differences between the AHL and SSD groups on either objective or subjective measures of the implanted ear. Individual word understanding improved for the majority of recipients across both groups and is not dependent on meeting the FDA criteria of less than 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation is a viable option with measurable objective and perceived benefits for recipients with preoperative aided CNC word scores exceeding current FDA labeling. There is no significant difference between the AHL and SSD groups, suggesting that candidacy and outcome expectations should be set based on the ear to be implanted alone, without regard for the ability of the better hearing ear.

Longitudinal Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implant: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine patterns of change and plateau in speech recognition scores in postlingually hearing impaired adult cochlear implant recipients. The study also examines variations in change patterns for different speech materials and testing conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Used systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Articles in English reporting speech recognition scores of adults with postlingual hearing loss at pre-implantation and at least two post-implantation time points were included. Statistically significant changes were determined by meta-analysis and the 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles representing 1954 patients were included. Meta-analysis of mean difference demonstrated significant improvements in speech recognition score for words in quiet (37.4%; 95% confidence interval [34.7%, 40.7%]), sentences in quiet (49.4%; 95% confidence interval [44.9%, 53.9%]), and sentences in noise (30.8%; 95% confidence interval [25.2%, 36.4%]) from pre-op to 3 months. Scores continued to increase from 3 to 12 months but did not reach significance. Similarly, significant improvements from pre-op to 3 months were observed for consonant nucleus consonant (CNC) words in quiet (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [33.8%, 40.4%]), hearing in noise test (HINT) sentences in quiet (46.5%; 95% confidence interval [37.0%, 56.0%]), AzBio sentences in quiet (45.9%; 95% confidence interval [44.2%, 47.5%]), and AzBio sentences in noise (26.4%; 95% confidence interval [18.6%, 34.2%]). HINT sentences in noise demonstrated improvement from pre-op to 3 months (35.1%; 95% confidence interval [30.0%, 40.3%]) and from 3 to 12 months (15.5%; 95% confidence interval [7.2%, 23.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Mean speech recognition scores demonstrate significant improvement within the first 3 months, with no further statistically significant improvement after 3 months. However, large individual variation should be expected and future research is needed to explain the sources of these individual differences. Laryngoscope, 2022.

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Children and adults with unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss (UHL/AHL) have poorer spatial hearing (e.g. speech understanding in complex maskers and localization) and quality of life compared with peers with normal hearing bilaterally. Patients with UHL/AHL experience limited benefits with contralateral-routing technologies (e.g. bone conduction, CROS hearing aid systems). Cochlear implantation allows for stimulation of the auditory pathway for the poorer hearing ear. The present study reviews the recent literature on outcomes of cochlear implant use for recipients with UHL/AHL.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research corroborates previous investigations of the significant benefits on measures of spatial hearing, tinnitus severity and quality of life for adult cochlear implant recipients. These benefits are also observed in pediatric cochlear implant recipients, with an association of better outcomes with younger ages at implantation for congenital cases and shorter durations of UHL/AHL for acquired cases. In addition, randomized trials demonstrate better outcomes with cochlear implant use versus contralateral-routing technologies.

SUMMARY

Cochlear implantation supports better spatial hearing and quality of life in children and adults with UHL/AHL as compared to alternative listening conditions. Current research supports the expansion of candidacy criteria and insurance coverage for cochlear implantation for patients with UHL/AHL to improve their binaural hearing.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Clinical Assessment and Management of Adult Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded to include individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss in the impaired ear and normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear, known as single-sided deafness (SSD). There are additional considerations for the clinical assessment and management of adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients with SSD as compared to conventional cochlear implant candidates with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The present report reviews the current evidence relevant to the assessment and management of adults with SSD. A systematic review was also conducted on published studies that investigated outcomes of cochlear implant use on measures of speech recognition in quiet and noise, sound source localization, tinnitus perception, and quality of life for this patient population. Expert consensus and systematic review of the current literature were combined to provide guidance for the clinical assessment and management of adults with SSD.

Masked Speech Recognition as a Function of Masker Location for Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

PURPOSE

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with normal or near normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear, referred to as single-sided deafness (SSD), experience significantly better speech recognition in noise with their CI than without it, although reported outcomes vary. One possible explanation for differences in outcomes across studies could be differences in the spatial configurations used to assess performance. This study compared speech recognition for different spatial configurations of the target and masker, with test materials used clinically.

METHOD

Sixteen CI users with SSD completed tasks of masked speech recognition presented in five spatial configurations. The target speech was presented from the front speaker (0° azimuth). The masker was located either 90° or 45° toward the CI-ear or NH-ear or colocated with the target. Materials were the AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker and the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise test (BKB-SIN; four-talker masker). Spatial release from masking (SRM) was computed as the benefit associated with spatial separation relative to the colocated condition.

RESULTS

Performance was significantly better when the masker was separated toward the CI-ear as compared to colocated. No benefit was observed for spatial separations toward the NH-ear. The magnitude of SRM for spatial separations toward the CI-ear was similar for 45° and 90° when tested with the AzBio sentences, but a larger benefit was observed for 90° as compared to 45° for the BKB-SIN.

CONCLUSIONS

Masked speech recognition in CI users with SSD varies as a function of the spatial configuration of the target and masker. Results supported an expansion of the clinical test battery at the study site to assess binaural hearing abilities for CI candidates and recipients with SSD. The revised test battery presents the target from the front speaker and the masker colocated with the target, 90° toward the CI-ear, or 90° toward the NH-ear.

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults Using Bimodal Hearing Configurations

Clinics are treating a growing number of patients with greater amounts of residual hearing. These patients often benefit from a bimodal hearing configuration in which acoustic input from a hearing aid on 1 ear is combined with electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant on the other ear. The current guidelines aim to review the literature and provide best practice recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of individuals with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who may benefit from bimodal hearing configurations. Specifically, the guidelines review: benefits of bimodal listening, preoperative and postoperative cochlear implant evaluation and programming, bimodal hearing aid fitting, contralateral routing of signal considerations, bimodal treatment for tinnitus, and aural rehabilitation recommendations.

Audiologic and patient perceived benefit in cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness

Background

CI in SSD strives to restore binaural hearing. With normal acoustic hearing on one ear, the benefits of rehabilitating the deaf ear with an implant are not well established.

Objectives

We investigate audiologic and quality-of-life measures, and long-term usage patterns of cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD)

Methods

Eight patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss of less than 5-year duration were recruited. Pure tone average (PTA), speech discrimination score (SDS), hearing-in-noise test (HINT), tinnitus handicap inventory (THI), quality-of-life speech spatial qualities (SSQ) scale tests were performed before, and one-year after CI. Long-term usage of CI four-years post-operatively was determined.

Results

The median PTA of the deaf ear was 96 dBHL (IQR = 90–120) before, and 30 dBHL (IQR = 27–33) after CI ( p = 0.0156). SDS improved from median of 0% (IQR = 0–3) to 33% (IQR = 24–58) ( p = 0.0360). Median signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly of the S0Nbetter setting of HINT showed improvement from 6.4 dB (IQR = 5.7–7) to 0.9 dB (IQR = −2.25–6.2) ( p = 0.1094). Despite median THI improving from 24 (IQR = 6–47) to 4 (IQR = 2–7) ( p = 0.1563), two patients experienced worsening of tinnitus. SSQ scores in all subscales showed modest improvement not approaching significance. 5 of 8 (62%) patients stopped using their implant four years after surgery.

Conclusion

Despite improved audiologic and tinnitus outcome measures, our patients’ SDS remained in non-serviceable range, while quality-of-life measures showed only modest improvement. Majority of our patients stopped using their implant four years post-surgery. Our study suggests that objective measurable benefits of CI in SSD may not translate to actual patient perceived benefits.

Electrical stimulation of the cochlea for treatment of chronic disabling tinnitus: an open-label trial towards the development of an implantable device

Background

Chronic tinnitus affects millions of people globally and constitutes the most commonly compensated disability among military service members in the United States. Existing treatment options largely surround helping patients cope with their disease as opposed to directly suppressing tinnitus perception. The current study investigated the efficacy of electrical stimulation of the cochlea on chronic disabling tinnitus.

Methods

In this single-arm, open-label clinical trial, 22 adult subjects with severe-range asymmetric or unilateral non-pulsatile tinnitus underwent electrical stimulation of the cochlea through use of an extra-cochlear electrode positioned on the cochlear promontory. Each subject underwent 3 stimulation treatments over 3 weeks at 7-day intervals. Tinnitus severity was determined by Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), and Tinnitus Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Inclusion criteria required subjects have no worse than moderate sensorineural hearing loss determined by pre-enrollment audiometric testing. The primary outcome was nadir post-treatment THI scores, obtained at seven timepoints following electrical stimulation, with clinically significant improvement defined as a decrease of  ≥ 7.

Results

All 22 (100%) subjects experienced clinically significant improvement in the THI during the study period with a mean decrease in scores of − 31 (95% CI − 38 to − 25) from a baseline of 48. Twenty (91%) experienced clinically significant improvement detectable on at least two of the three tinnitus survey instruments and 17 (77%) experienced clinically significant improvement detectable on all three survey instruments (i.e., THI, TFI, and VAS). Eight (36%) subjects reported either complete (THI of 0; n  = 3) or near-complete (THI 1–4; n  = 5) suppression of their tinnitus following a stimulation session. Thirteen (59%) subjects reported a nadir following stimulation at or below the threshold for “no or slight handicap” on the THI (≤ 16). No adverse events were observed.

Conclusions

These findings establish the foundation for the development of an extra-cochlear implantable device that delivers electrical stimulation to the cochlea for the treatment of disabling tinnitus. For patients considering device implantation, trans-tympanic cochlear promontory stimulation can facilitate patient selection.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759834. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03759834

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-022-03271-4.

Speech Perception Performance Growth and Benchmark Score Achievement After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness

OBJECTIVES

Compare speech perception performance growth and benchmark score achievement among adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients with single-sided deafness (SSD) versus bilateral moderate to profound hearing loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective matched cohort analysis.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Adults with SSD or bilateral moderate to profound hearing sensorineural hearing loss who underwent cochlear implantation from 2014 to 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time-to-benchmark speech perception score (CNC, AzBio in quiet) and speech performance within first postoperative year.

RESULTS

Thirty-three SSD patients were matched to 66 bilateral hearing loss patients (referent cohort) for duration of deafness and preoperative ipsilateral CNC scores. Although SSD patients were more likely to achieve benchmark CNC scores more quickly compared with matched referents, this difference did not reach statistical significance (HR 1.72; 95% CI 0.78-3.82; p = 0.18). AzBio scores showed similar trends (HR 1.40; 95% CI 0.66-2.98; p = 0.38). At last follow-up, the SSD cohort had lower CNC (median 54% vs. 62%; p = 0.019) and AzBio scores (median 72% vs. 84%; p = 0.029) compared to the referent cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in speech perception performance growth (i.e., time-to-benchmark speech perception score) was identified between SSD and bilateral hearing loss CI recipients, although patients with bilateral hearing loss achieved higher scores in the implanted ear within the first year of follow-up.

Impact of Duration of Deafness on Speech Perception in Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear Implantation in Adults

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of prolonged auditory deprivation on speech perception outcomes in adult acquired single-sided deafness (SSD) cochlear implant (CI) recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic center.

PATIENTS

Acquired SSD in adults with and without prolonged duration of deafness (defined as >10 yr) who underwent CI between 2014 and 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

CI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) and AzBio in quiet scores within first year of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 35 adult patients with SSD were evaluated, with a median overall duration of deafness of 2.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.2-6.0 yr): seven patients with prolonged auditory deprivation (median 18 yr, IQR 15-28) were compared with 28 SSD patients with duration of deafness less than 10 years (median 1.7 yr, IQR 1.1-3.2). At last follow-up, the median CNC scores were 39% (IQR 31-64) and 54% (IQR 46-64) for the prolonged and shorter duration of deafness cohorts, respectively (p = 0.3). The median AzBio scores were 66% (IQR 65-68) and 72% (IQR 60-82) for the prolonged and shorter duration of deafness cohorts, respectively (p = 0.6). In a separate analysis evaluating duration of deafness as a continuous variable across all 35 patients, Spearman correlation coefficients for associations of duration of deafness with most recent CNC and AzBio scores were -0.02 (p = 0.9) and 0.02 (p = 0.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult CI recipients with acquired SSD, with and without prolonged auditory deprivation, demonstrated comparable speech perception scores. Prolonged duration of deafness alone should not preclude a motivated SSD patient from undergoing cochlear implantation.

Iatrogenic Third Window After Retrosigmoid Approach to a Vestibular Schwannoma Managed with Cochlear Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To present a case of an iatrogenic inner ear third window after vestibular schwannoma microsurgery.

PATIENTS

A 42-year-old male presented 9-months after left-sided retrosigmoid approach for an intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma with hearing-preservation attempt performed elsewhere. Immediately postoperatively, he developed the following disabling and persistent symptoms on the ipsilateral side: autophony, pulsatile tinnitus, high-pitched ringing tinnitus, and hearing his footsteps. He denied vertigo. Otoscopy was normal. Tuning fork (512-Hz) lateralized to the left and Rinne was negative on the left. Audiogram demonstrated a severe mixed hearing loss and 10% aided word-recognition score. High-resolution CT demonstrated violation of the common crus and dehiscence of bone along the medial vestibule suggestive of an iatrogenic inner ear third window.

INTERVENTIONS

Labyrinthectomy and concurrent cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Resolution of third window symptoms, open-set speech recognition, tinnitus suppression.

RESULTS

Patient reported immediate resolution of third window symptoms after labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation. He demonstrates open-set word recognition of 64% at 1-year postoperatively and tinnitus suppression with his cochlear implant on.

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic third window symptoms can occur after hearing-preservation vestibular schwannoma microsurgery. Patients with sufficient hearing preservation who are disabled by third window symptoms yet lack sound clarity and useful hearing may be considered for labyrinthectomy and concurrent cochlear implantation. This intervention effectively extinguishes third window symptoms by destroying residual auditory function and simultaneously provides an opportunity to restore useful hearing and suppress tinnitus, thereby enhancing overall quality of life.