Relationships between bilateral auditory brainstem activity and inter-implant interval in children with cochlear implants

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of the interval between bilateral cochlear implantation on the development of bilateral peripheral auditory pathways as revealed by the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR).

METHODS

Fifty-eight children with profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. Among them, 33 children received sequential bilateral cochlear implants (CIs), and 25 children received simultaneous bilateral CIs. The bilateral EABRs evoked by electrical stimulation from the CI electrode were recorded on the day of second-side CI activation.

RESULTS

The latencies of wave III (eIII) and wave V (eV) were significantly shorter on the first CI side than on the second CI side in children with sequential bilateral CIs but were similar between the two sides in children with simultaneous bilateral CIs. Furthermore, the latencies were prolonged from apical to basal channels along the cochlea in the two groups. In children with sequential CIs, the inter-implant interval was negatively correlated with the eV latency on the first CI side and was positively correlated with bilateral differences in the eIII and eV latencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral CI use promotes the maturation of ipsilateral auditory conduction function. However, a longer inter-implant interval results in more unbalanced development of bilateral auditory brainstem pathways. Bilateral cochlear implantation with no or a short interval is recommended.

The relationship of inter-implant time and hearing outcomes for bilateral cochlear implants

PURPOSE

Determine the relationship between time elapsed between sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (BiCI) and speech intelligibility scores in post-lingually deafened adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of post-lingually deafened adults who received bilateral cochlear implants from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2018 at an ambulatory tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

113 patients (226 cochlear implants) were initially reviewed, with 56 patients (112 implants) being included in the final analysis. Median inter-implant interval was 187.5 days (IQ range 54.25-346.5). Maximum interval was 1787 days. Mean age at first implant was 60.66 ± 13.37. Bilateral AzBio score in quiet and inter-implant interval showed no significant correlation (r = 0.034, p = 0.815). There was no significant difference in mean bilateral AzBio scores in quiet between the simultaneous and sequential implantation groups (p = 0.22). Similar non-significant results were seen when examining the correlation between AzBio Difference and inter-implant interval (r = -0.07, p = 0.66). No significant result between mean AzBio Difference of simultaneous and sequential implant recipients was found (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

For the inter-implant intervals examined, there seems to be no significant decline in speech intelligibility scores for patients receiving sequential bilateral cochlear implants compared to simultaneously implanted patients. There was no significant correlation noted between increasing inter-implant intervals and speech intelligibility scores.

Sequential pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation: The effect of time interval between implants

OBJECTIVE

To examine speech intelligibility in children subjected to sequential bilateral cochlear implants (CI) surgery and to assess the influence of the inter-stage interval duration.

INTRODUCTION

Binaural hearing recovery can have additional benefits, especially in speech and language development in patients with congenital profound sensorineural hearing loss; so recently there has been an increase in the number of children receiving bilateral CI.

METHODS

Twenty-seven children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implant (SBCI) with a short (1-3 yrs), medium (4-6 yrs) and long (7-12 yrs) range interval between both implantations, respectively, were evaluated. All patients underwent periodic speech perception test in quiet and noise after second implant activation in three conditions: with the first or second implant alone and with both implants. Results were examined according to the inter-stage interval.

RESULTS

Speech intelligibility in noise was significantly better under bilateral conditions than either ear alone, in all three groups. Small improvements were seen in quiet, especially in the third group (6-12 yrs).

CONCLUSION

Benefits of second implant in the early-implanted children and after a short inter-implant delay are more evident. However our study support that, even after a long period of deafness and despite a prolonged inter-stage interval, sequential bilateral cochlear implantation should be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.