Radiological and Audiological Outcomes of the LISTENT LCI-20PI Cochlear Implant Device

Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of the LISTENT LCI-20PI cochlear implant in prelingually deafened children

OBJECTIVES

This prospective multicenter clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel cochlear implant (CI) system, the LISTENT LCI-20PI device in prelingually deafened children (<6 years old).

DESIGN

The LCI-20PI CI system was implanted in 70 prelingually deafened children (<6 years old). The median age (interquartile range) at implantation was 3 years old (2-4 years old). The status of the LCI-20PI devices was evaluated through CI device testing and fitting including measurement of electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), electrode impedances, subjective thresholds (T levels), and subjective comfort levels (C levels). The safety and effectiveness of the devices were evaluated during 1-year follow-up. The clinical trial registration number is ChiCTR2200067092.

RESULTS

ECAPs were successfully measured in 92.8% (64/70) recipients intraoperatively and in 94.3% (66/70) recipients during device activation. Most of the impedances (99.7%) were within normal limits of 0.7-20 kOhm. The median (interquartile ranges) Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale/Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS/IT-MAIS) was 95% (85%-97.5%) at 12-month post-activation testing. Median (interquartile range) close-set monosyllabic-word recognition score (MRS) and disyllabic-word recognition score (DRS) in children 3-6 years old at 12-month post-activation testing were 86% (77%-97%) and 90% (70%-100%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The new developed LCI-20PI CI device proved safe and effective in prelingually deafened children (<6 years old) in the clinical trial. This CI system could be a cost-effective alternative for prelingually deafened children.

Variation in cochlear size: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advancements in imaging and implantation technology have invited reexamination of the classic teaching that the human cochlea maintains uniform size across demographics. Yet, studies yield conflicting results and relatively few broad systematic reviews have examined cochlear size variation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to quantify cochlear variability across eight different measurement categories and suggest normative values and ranges for each with consideration of disease state and gender where possible.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to October 1, 2022, using the search terms "Cochlea/anatomy and histology"[Mesh]) AND 'size'" with filters "Humans" and "English" across three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Medline). Further inclusion criteria involved reporting of numerical measurements in any of the eight included categories.

RESULTS

Of the 625 articles manually reviewed for relevance by title and abstract, 91 were selected for full-text review and 33 met all eligibility criteria. 5,791 cochleae were included and weighted means and ranges were calculated: "A" value (defined as the distance from the round window, through the modiolus, to the oppsite lateral wall) = 9.23 mm (8.43-10.4 mm, n = 2559); cochlear duct length (CDL) = 33.04 mm (range 28.2-36.4 mm, n = 2252); cochlear height = 5.14 mm (2.8-6.9 mm, n = 2098); the basal turn lumen diameter = 2.09 mm (1.7-2.2 mm, n = 617); "B" value (defined as perpendicular to "A" value and in the same plane) = 6.52 mm (5.73-6.9 mm, n = 908); width of the basal turn = 6.4 mm (6.22-6.86 mm, n = 356); height of the basal turn = 1.96 mm (1.77-2.56 mm, n = 204); length of the basal turn 21.87 mm (21.03-22.5 mm, n = 384).

CONCLUSION

A notable size range exists across the eight different cochlear parameters considered and we provide normative values for each measurement. Females tend to have smaller CDL and "A" value than males and the sensorineural hearing loss patients had smaller CDL and "A" value but larger cochlear height than the general population.