Systematic Review on Intra- and Extracochlear Electrical Stimulation for Tinnitus

Tinnitus mechanisms and the need for an objective electrophysiological tinnitus test

Tinnitus, the perception of sound with no external auditory stimulus, is a complex, multifaceted, and potentially devastating disorder. Despite recent advances in our understanding of tinnitus, there are limited options for effective treatment. Tinnitus treatments are made more complicated by the lack of a test for tinnitus based on objectively measured physiological characteristics. Such an objective test would enable a greater understanding of tinnitus mechanisms and may lead to faster treatment development in both animal and human research. This review makes the argument that an objective tinnitus test, such as a non-invasive electrophysiological measure, is desperately needed. We review the current tinnitus assessment methods, the underlying neural correlates of tinnitus, the multiple tinnitus generation theories, and the previously investigated electrophysiological measurements of tinnitus. Finally, we propose an alternate objective test for tinnitus that may be valid in both animal and human subjects.

Neural Plasticity in Tinnitus Mechanisms

Basic work into neuroplasticity mechanisms in both invertebrate and vertebrate brains, followed by the development of the first animal model of tinnitus, and coupled with clinical studies of tinnitus, meant that, by 1990, Jastreboff [...].

Current and Emerging Therapies for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus

IMPORTANCE

Chronic subjective tinnitus, the perception of sound without an external source for longer than six months, may be a greatly debilitating condition for some people, and is associated with psychiatric comorbidities and high healthcare costs. Current treatments are not beneficial for all patients and there is a large need for new therapies for tinnitus.

OBSERVATIONS

Unlike rarer cases of objective tinnitus, chronic subjective tinnitus often has no obvious etiology and a diverse pathophysiology. In the absence of objective testing, diagnosis is heavily based on clinical assessment. Management strategies include hearing aids, sound masking, tinnitus retraining therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and emerging therapies including transcranial magnetic stimulation and electrical stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although current treatments are limited, emerging diagnostics and treatments provide promising avenues for the management of tinnitus symptoms.

The effect of lidocaine iontophoresis for the treatment of tinnitus: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Tinnitus is a common symptom with multiple causes and treatment options. Previous studies have investigated the effect of lidocaine iontophoresis. The aim of this review is to systematically present the effects on tinnitus and to derive possible effects.

METHODS

In accordance to the PRISMA statement, the search and analysis were performed. An abstract in German or English and a performed intervention with lidocaine iontophoresis for the treatment of tinnitus, independent of the study design, were considered as inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, only a narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 179 studies of which 170 were excluded. Six full-texts and three abstracts were included. In total, 957 patients were treated with lidocaine iontophoresis. The percent improvement in symptoms after lidocaine iontophoresis ranged from 4% to 62%. The qualitative assessment of the studies resulted in an overall "weak" rating for all of them.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the heterogeneity and the limited quality of the studies found, no clear statement can be made about the efficacy. The number of those who benefited from therapy varied widely. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that the effect was merely due to electrical stimulation of the cochlea.

Evaluation and Management of Tinnitus: Are There Opportunities for Improvement?

OBJECTIVE

To review current information about diagnosis and management of tinnitus aiming to identify opportunities for achieving a cost-effective, efficient, evidence-based approach that meets the needs of tinnitus sufferers.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE.

REVIEW METHODS

In total, 249 relevant published reports were reviewed. Pertinent keywords and MeSH terms identified reports via PubMed and EMBASE. Acknowledged experts were consulted on ways to improve tinnitus management.

CONCLUSIONS

There may be opportunities to improve evaluation and management of patients with tinnitus using modern modes of communication and a multidisciplinary therapeutic approach.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Tinnitus can adversely affect quality of life while being time-consuming and costly to evaluate and manage. Based on both personal experience and the reports of others, patients with tinnitus who choose to see a physician primarily want to know two things: (1) that the tinnitus that is so distressing will not remain at the same level of severity forever and (2) that something can be done to help cope with the tinnitus that is so annoying. Recent advancements in internet communications, social media, information technology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, holistic medical care, mind-body integrative health care, and multidisciplinary approaches in medical therapeutics may be possibly making new ways of meeting the needs of patients with tinnitus.

The Effectiveness of Targeted Electrical Stimulation via Cochlear Implant on Tinnitus-Perceived Loudness

Introduction

The cause of tinnitus improvement in cochlear implant (CI) users is not understood. On the basis that a spatially limited dysfunction in the auditory pathway could cause tinnitus, we used single-channel stimulation to evaluate any variation of tinnitus-perceived loudness and identify the cochlear regions involved.

Materials and Methods

It was an observational prospective case-crossover study. After the first mapping, 21 adults with unilateral CI and chronic tinnitus expressed their tinnitus loudness based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score (0–10) at baseline (L⁰), during a 10 s single-channel stimulation with C-level of electric current (L¹) and 30 min after CI activation (L²). Tinnitus reduction [R^T = (L⁰ – L¹) × 100/L⁰] > 50% was considered significant. VAS outcomes were compared between baseline (L0) and (each) single-channel stimulation (L1) to find the channel with the greatest R^T (suppressive channel-SC), whose frequency range revealed the cochlear region involved. Seven patients with asymmetric hearing loss underwent the pitch-matching test to identify the actual frequency evoked by the SC. We compared selective (L¹) and non-selective (L²) intracochlear stimulation using paired t-test. Preoperative Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score was compared with those at 1, 6, and 12 months with paired t-tests to evaluate long-term tinnitus perception.

Results

We observed a significant reduction of tinnitus loudness during the experimental procedure [L⁰ (6.4 ± 2.4) vs. L¹ (1.7 ± 2.7), p = 0.003]. A total of 15/21 patients (71.4%) had a significant (R^T > 50%) and selective improvement, reporting a mean L¹ of 0.4 ± 2.0 (p = 0.0001). In 10/15 (66.6%) patients, the SC was in the apical turn, within 1,000 Hz; in 5/15 patients (33.4%) within 4,000 Hz. The cochlear region 125–313 Hz was the most affected by tinnitus improvement (p = 0.0074). Targeted stimulation was more effective than non-selective stimulation [L¹ vs. L² (4.3 ± 2.5), p = 0.0022]. In 3/7 patients, the perceived pitch did not fall within the SC frequency ranges. All patients with selective attenuation described tinnitus as monotone. Patients with non-selective attenuation had polyphonic tinnitus and better THI results after 1 year.

Conclusion

Targeted intracochlear electrical stimulation improved chronic tinnitus perception, especially in monotone tinnitus, and the apical region was mainly involved. Our results provide new insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of tinnitus and targets for innovative therapeutic strategies.

Effect of electrical stimulation with a cochlear implant on tinnitus impact: protocol of an individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tinnitus is the perception of sound without an external stimulus, often experienced as a ringing, buzzing sound. While several studies have shown a reduction in tinnitus distress following cochlear implantation, others showed an increase or no change after implantation. At this stage, clinicians have little certainty when counselling their patients prior to implantation regarding tinnitus post-implantation. To help clinicians to counsel cochlear implant (CI) candidates on the risk of developing or improving tinnitus after implantation, we aim to assess the effect of electrical stimulation with a CI on tinnitus impact for individual adult patients with tinnitus. We will also apply prediction models to individual patient data (IPD) of clinical trials to find predictive factors of the effect of electrical stimulation on tinnitus impact.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

The IPD meta-analysis is a follow-up project of the systematic review on cochlear implantation in patients with tinnitus as a primary complaint. First, the systematic searches will be updated to date. Methodological quality of eligible studies will be assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Intervention tool (ROBINS-I). Based on a data-sharing agreement, authors of the eligible studies will be invited to share their deidentified and complete IPD. The primary outcome is the effect of electrical stimulation with a CI on tinnitus impact 1 month or more post-implantation. IPD meta-analysis will be used to assess the primary outcome, while differentiating the tinnitus impact questionnaires. Second, linear regression analyses will be used to model the effect of electrical stimulation on tinnitus impact based on relevant predictors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Research Involving Human Subject Act does not apply, and ethical approval is not required. The study results will be made accessible to the public in a peer-review open access journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022319367, review ongoing.