A practical guide to cochlear implantation in adults with long durations of monaural sound deprivation

Evaluation of auditory pathway excitability using a pre-operative trans-tympanic electrically evoked auditory brainstem response under local anesthesia in cochlear implant candidates

OBJECTIVE

Subjective promontory stimulation is used to evaluate cochlear implant (CI) candidacy, but the test reliability is low. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) can verify the function of the auditory system objectively. This study's procedure uses a trans-tympanic rounded bent-tip electrode to perform pre-operative EABR under local anaesthesia (LA-TT-EABR) using MED-EL Software and Hardware. This study aimed to determine usability and effectiveness for CI candidates.

DESIGN

We hypothesised that LA-TT-EABR waveforms of good quality would be related to successful hearing outcomes. We assumed that the duration of hearing loss/deafness was a confounding factor to study outcomes.

STUDY SAMPLE

19 borderline CI candidates.

RESULTS

Positive LA-TT-EABR results were confirmed in 14 patients. LA-TT-EABR's mean latency was 2.05 ± 0.31 ms (eII/eIII) and 4.24 ± 0.39 ms (eIV/eV). Latencies weren't statistically different from intra-operative EABR elicited by basal CI contacts. All positive LA-TT-EABR patients benefitted from CI and speech performance improved one year after implantation. One patient with negative LA-TT-EABR was cochlear-implanted and had no hearing sensation.

CONCLUSIONS

LA-TT-EABR is a tool in the frame of pre-operative objective testing the auditory pathway. It seems useful for clinical testing CI candidacy. Based on this study's outcomes, LA-TT-EABR should be recommended for uncertain CI candidates.

Benefits of auditory-verbal intervention for adult cochlear implant users: perspectives of users and their coaches

OBJECTIVE

Post-implant rehabilitation is limited for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. The objective of this research was to capture the perspectives of CI users and their coaches regarding their experiences with auditory-verbal intervention as an example of post-implant rehabilitation and their views on perceived benefits and challenges related to the intervention.

DESIGN

This qualitative study involved semi-structured focus group interviews with adult CI users and their coaches who accompanied them in a 24-week auditory-verbal intervention program.

STUDY SAMPLE

A total of 17 participants (eight CI users and nine coaches) contributed to the interviews.

RESULTS

Three key topic areas emerged from the interviews capturing CI users' and coaches' experiences related to the intervention program: (1) benefits of the intervention, (2) factors affecting experiences, and (3) challenges and barriers. Benefits included increased confidence in hearing, communication, social participation, and new knowledge about technology and hearing. Factors affecting the experience were participants' motivation and the therapist's skills. The primary challenge was the time commitment for weekly therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CI users and coaches perceived a focussed auditory-verbal intervention to be beneficial in improving speech understanding, confidence in using hearing, social interaction, and knowledge about technology. Participants recommended reducing the intensity of intervention to facilitate participation.

Cochlear implantation in adults with auditory deprivation: What do we know about it?

INTRODUCTION

In the ENT community, auditory deprivation is frequently considered as a negative prognostic factor for a good hearing outcome of cochlear implantation (CI), even if a growing literature suggests that this is not completely true. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of CI in patients with hearing deprivation, to compare them to results from non-deprived patients and then estimate how time of deprivation impacts on CI outcome and how a bilateral deprivation can affect the outcome compared to a unilateral deprivation.

METHODS

Seventy-eight adults with severe to profound post-verbal hearing loss, with and without auditory deprivation history, received CI; audiological results obtained at 3-6-12-24 months follow up post CI were analyzed.

RESULTS

No differences were founded between patients with unilateral deprivation and patients with no deprivation. Patients with bilateral deprivation seem to have a worse hearing outcome compared to that of those patients with unilateral deprivation or no deprivation at all. Long time deprivation (>15 years) seems to have a negative influence on the hearing outcome but results with CI remain excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Auditory deprivation should not be considered a contraindication to CI. The duration of auditory deprivation in the implanted ear seems to be a negative prognostic factor only for ears deprived from more of 15 years.