Slim Perimodiolar Arrays Are as Effective as Slim Lateral Wall Arrays for Functional Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation

Hearing preservation in paediatric cochlear implantation with the Nucleus Slim Straight Electrode - our experience

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the levels of successful hearing preservation and preservation of functional hearing following cochlear implantation (HPCI) in children using the Cochlear Nucleus® Slim Straight Electrode (SSE).

DESIGN

retrospective case note review of paediatric HPCI cases in our CI centre from 2013 to 2023. Inclusion criteria were attempted hearing preservation surgery, SSE used for implantation, pre-operative hearing thresholds ≤80dBHL at 250 Hz, CI before 18 years of age. Patients were excluded if no postoperative unaided PTA was obtained (poor attendance). Primairy outcome was hearing preservation using the HEARRING group formula; secondary outcome was residual functional hearing (≤80dBHL at 250 Hz/<90dB LFPTA).

STUDY SAMPLE

56 patients with 94 CI's were included for review.

RESULTS

Hearing preservation was achieved in 94.7% (89/94) of ears and complete preservation in 72% (68/94)). Average functional hearing was preserved in 89% using both criteria for preservation. Long-term follow up data was available for 36 ears (average 35.2 months), demonstrating 88.9% (32/36) complete preservation.

CONCLUSION

We have reliably achieved and maintained a high success rate of HPCI using the SSE in our paediatric population. The field of HPCI would benefit from unification of outcome reporting in order to optimise the evidence available to professionals, patients and their carers.

The Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Type on Hearing Preservation

ObjectiveTo compare hearing preservation outcomes between lateral wall and perimodiolar electrode arrays for cochlear implant patients.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA large Western Australian cochlear implant clinicMethodsA total of 311 adult cochlear implant recipients (321 ears) implanted between 2017 and 2022 were included. Of these, 174 presented with postlingual hearing loss and preoperative functional low-frequency hearing. The change in low-frequency pure-tone average was assessed as the difference between preoperative to 3-, 6-, and 12-months postoperative measurements. Data were analyzed through linear mixed-effects modeling and one-way ANOVA.ResultsPreoperative low-frequency, pure-tone average was higher for those implanted with perimodiolar compared with lateral wall electrodes (P < .05). The linear mixed-effects model revealed that change in low-frequency pure-tone average at all postoperative timepoints was similar between lateral wall and perimodiolar electrodes (P > .05).ConclusionThere were similar changes in residual postoperative hearing between all electrode types when controlling for preoperative low-frequency hearing and age implanted. These data suggest that newer, thinner perimodiolar and lateral wall electrodes could be considered for individuals with greater levels of preoperative low-frequency hearing.

Evaluation of a Slim Modiolar Electrode Array: A Temporal Bone Study

HYPOTHESIS

Evaluation of the Slim Modiolar (SM) electrode in temporal bones (TB) will elucidate the electrode's insertion outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The SM electrode was designed for atraumatic insertion into the scala tympani, for ideal perimodiolar positioning and with a smaller caliber to minimize interference with cochlear biological processes.

METHODS

The SM electrode was inserted into TBs via a cochleostomy. First, the axial force of insertion was measured. Next, TBs were inserted under fluoroscopy to study insertion dynamics, followed by histologic evaluation of electrode placement and cochlear trauma. A subset of TBs were inserted with the Contour Advance (CA) electrode for comparison.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 22 insertions performed to measure the axial force of insertion had flat or near zero insertion force profiles. Six insertions had increased insertion forces, which were attributed to improper sheath depth before electrode insertion. Under real-time fluoroscopy, 23 of 25 TBs had uneventful insertion and good perimodiolar placement. There was 1 scala vestibuli insertion due to suboptimal cochleostomy position and 1 tip roll over related to premature electrode deployment. When compared with the CA electrode, 14 of 15 insertions with the SM electrode resulted in a more perimodiolar electrode position. No evidence of trauma was found in histologic evaluation of the 24 TBs with scala tympani insertions.

CONCLUSION

TB evaluation revealed that the SM electrode exerts minimal insertion forces on cochlear structures, produces no histologic evidence of trauma, and reliably assumes the perimodiolar position. Nonstandard cochleostomy location, improper sheath insertion depth, or premature deployment of the electrode may lead to suboptimal outcomes.

Recent advances in Otology: Current landscape and future direction

Hearing is an essential sensation, and its deterioration leads to a significant decrease in the quality of life. Thus, great efforts have been made by otologists to preserve and recover hearing. Our knowledge regarding the field of otology has progressed with advances in technology, and otologists have sought to develop novel approaches in the field of otologic surgery to achieve higher hearing recovery or preservation rates. This requires knowledge regarding the anatomy of the temporal bone and the physiology of hearing. Basic research in the field of otology has progressed with advances in molecular biology and genetics. This review summarizes the current views and recent advances in the field of otology and otologic surgery, especially from the viewpoint of young Japanese clinician-scientists, and presents the perspectives and future directions for several topics in the field of otology. This review will aid next-generation researchers in understanding the recent advances and future challenges in the field of otology.

The association between electrode impedance and short-term outcomes in cochlear implant recipients of slim modiolar and slim straight electrode arrays

OBJECTIVES

Electrode impedance measurements from cochlear implants (CI) reflect the status of the electrode array as well as the surrounding cochlear environment, and could provide a clinical index of functional changes with the CI. The goals of this study were to examine (1) the impact of electrode array type on electrode impedance, and (2) the relationship between electrode impedance and short-term hearing preservation and speech recognition outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 115 adult hearing preservation CI recipients of a slim modiolar or slim straight array. Common ground electrode impedances, pre- and post-operative hearing thresholds and CNC word recognition scores were retrieved.

RESULTS

Electrode impedances were significantly higher for recipients of the straight electrode array. Within individuals, electrode impedances were stable after the first week post-activation. However, increased standard deviation of electrode impedances was associated with greater loss of low frequency hearing at initial activation, and with poorer speech recognition at 6 months post-implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate that electrode impedances depend on the type of implanted array. Findings also suggest that there may be a role for the variability in electrode impedance across electrodes as an indicator of changes in the intracochlear environment that contribute to outcomes with a CI.

A Multicenter Comparison of 1-yr Functional Outcomes and Programming Differences Between the Advanced Bionics Mid-Scala and SlimJ Electrode Arrays

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is a difference in hearing outcomes or stimulation levels between Advanced Bionics straight and precurved arrays.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review across three implant centers.

SETTING

Tertiary centers for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifteen pediatric and 205 adult cochlear implants (CIs) were reviewed. All patients were implanted under the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2009 guidelines with a HiRes Ultra SlimJ or Mid-Scala electrode array.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hearing preservation after implantation, as well as CI-only listening scores for Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentences were compared 1 year after implantation. Stimulation levels for threshold and comfort levels were also compared 1 year after implantation.

RESULTS

Hearing preservation was significantly better with the SlimJ compared with the Mid-Scala electrode array. Bamford-Kowal-Bench outcomes were not significantly different between the two arrays in any listening condition. Stimulation levels were not different between arrays but did vary across electrode contacts. At least one electrode was deactivated in 33% of implants but was more common for the SlimJ device.

CONCLUSION

Modern straight and precurved arrays from Advanced Bionics did not differ in hearing performance or current requirements. Although hearing preservation was possible with both devices, the SlimJ array would still be the preferred electrode in cases where hearing preservation was a priority. Unfortunately, the SlimJ device was also prone to poor sound perception on basal electrodes. Further investigation is needed to determine if deactivated electrodes are associated with electrode position/migration, and if programming changes are needed to optimize the use of these high-frequency channels.

One-Year Hearing Preservation and Speech Outcomes Comparing Slim Modiolar and Lateral Wall Arrays

OBJECTIVE

Compare postoperative speech outcomes in hearing preservation (HP) cochlear implantation (CI) patients with a low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) ≤ 60 dB using 2 electrode array designs.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large academic cochlear implant referral center.

METHODS

We reviewed adult HP CI cases using either the slim modiolar electrode (SME) (CI 532/CI 632) or th slim lateral wall electrode (SLWE) (CI 624). One-year speech outcomes and HP status were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 implanted ears were analyzed (mean age 73.1 years, standard deviation [SD] 12.6), with 72% (N = 95) with CI 532/632 and 28% (N = 37) with CI 624. The mean preoperative LFPTA was 44.8 dB, SD 11.8. One-year functional HP was 27.2% (mean LFPTA shift 46.1 dB, SD 22.1) and was as follows: SME 23.9% and SLWE 36.4%, p = .168. The mean age at implantation was significantly younger only in SLWE patients with preserved hearing (66.9 vs 80.3 years, p = .008). At 6 months, speech measures were significantly better in all outcomes in HP patients with an SLWE than nonpreserved SLWE patients; this effect abated at 1 year as performance among nonpreserved SLWE patients became equivalent to the remaining cohort. Speech outcomes in SME patients were similar regardless of HP status. Age at implantation and datalogging was correlated with speech outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of HP patients, a 1-year functional HP rate of 23.9% (SME) and 36.4% (SLWE) was observed (p = 0.168). This was initially 57.1% (SME) and 70.3% (SLWE) at activation, p = .172. Datalogging and age at implantation were correlated with postoperative speech outcomes.

The Relation of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Type and Position on Continued Hearing Preservation

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the relationship of electrode array (EA) type and position on hearing preservation longevity following cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Adult cochlear implant recipients between 2013 and 2019 with hearing preserved postoperatively and postoperative CT scans.

INTERVENTIONS

CT scan analysis of EA position. Stepwise regression to determine influence of EA position, EA type, and patient demographics on postoperative low frequency hearing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Low frequency pure tone average (LFPTA), LFPTA shift, angular insertion depth, base insertion depth, scalar position, mean perimodiolar distance.

RESULTS

Of 792 cochlear implant recipients, 121 had preoperative LFPTA <80 dB HL with 60 of the 121 (49.6%) implanted with straight, 32 (26.4%) with precurved, styletted, and 29 (24.0%) implanted precurved, nonstyletted EA. Mean follow up was 28.6 months (range 1-103). There was no statistically significant difference in activation, 6- and 12-month, and last follow-up LFPTA (125, 250, and 500 Hz) shift based on EA type (straight p = 0.302, precurved, styletted p = 0.52, precurved, nonstyletted p = 0.77). Preoperative LFPTA and age of implantation were significant predictors of LFPTA shift at activation, accounting for 30.8% of variance ( F [2, 113] = 26.603, p < 0.0001). LFPTA shift at activation, scalar position, and base insertion depth were significant predictors of variability and accounted for 39.1% of variance in LFPTA shift at 6 months ( F [3, 87] = 20.269, p < 0.0001). Only LFPTA shift at 12 months was found to be a significant predictor of LFPTA shift at last follow up, accounting for 41.0% of variance ( F [1, 48] = 32.653, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients had excellent long-term residual hearing regardless of EA type. Age, preoperative acoustic hearing, and base insertion depth may predict short term preservation, while 12-month outcomes significantly predicted long-term hearing preservation.

Molecular aetiology of ski-slope hearing loss and audiological course of cochlear implantees

PURPOSE

A challenge for patients with ski-slope hearing loss is that hearing aids do not adequately amplify the mid-to-high frequencies necessary for speech perception and conversely, cochlear implant (CI) may damage low-frequency hearing. We aimed to describe the clinical profile of patients with ski-slope hearing loss, with a special focus on aetiology of such hearing loss and audiological course of low-frequency hearing after CI.

METHODS

We recruited hearing-impaired patients who visited a tertiary referral centre and met the criteria for ski-slope hearing loss patients from 2015 to 2021. Genetic testing was performed in all ski-slope hearing loss patients unless refused. Baseline audiograms of patients who continued to use hearing aids or who finally underwent CIs were reviewed. As for CI patients, outcome and hearing preservation rate were rigorously analysed.

RESULTS

Of 46 recruited patients with ski-slope hearing loss, 45 agreed to undergo genetic testing and causative variants were identified in 17 (37.8%) patients. The TMC1, MYO7A, and TMPRSS3 variants were the most common, while LRTOMT was newly identified as a causative gene. Twenty-five patients eventually received CI, while 13 continued to wear the hearing aid and 8 patients did not ever try hearing aids. CI in ski-slope hearing loss led to immediate and sufficient improvement of sentence recognition by as early as 3 months, however, the duration of hearing loss was inversely correlated with the sentence recognition score. The average hearing preservation rate (using the HEARRING classification) after CI was 53.0% (SD 30.0) and 45.6% (SD 31.1) at 1 year. Seventy-nine percent of implantees maintained functional low-frequency hearing (better than 85 dB at 250 and 500 Hz) eligible for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). A trend was found that patients with hair cell stereocilia-associated genetic variants may have a slightly better preservation, albeit with no statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Detection rate of a molecular genetic aetiology of ski-slope hearing loss appears to be lower than other type of hearing loss reported in the literature. Especially with short hearing loss duration, CI in ski-slope hearing loss leads to immediate and sufficient speech improvement, while preserving functional low-frequency hearing eligible for EAS as many as in 79%. A certain genetic aetiology might be associated with a trend towards better low-frequency hearing preservation.

Long-term Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception Performance Outcomes With the Slim Modiolar Electrode

OBJECTIVE

Describe audiologic outcomes in hearing preservation (HP) cochlear implant candidates using a slim modiolar electrode (SME).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Two hundred three adult cochlear implant patients with preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA) ≤ 80 dB HL that received the SME.

INTERVENTION

Implantation with a SME electrode.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was postoperative HP, defined as LFPTA ≤80 dB HL. HP status was analyzed at "early" (activation or 3 mo) and "long-term" (6 or 12 mo) time frames using the patient's worst audiogram. Speech perception tests were compared between HP and non-HP cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 203 HP candidates, the tip fold-over rate was 7.4%. The mean shifts in LFPTA at the "early" and "long-term" time points were 25.9 ± 16.2 dB HL and 29.6 ± 16.9 dB HL, respectively. Of 117 patients with preoperative LFPTA ≤60 dB HL, the early and long-term mean LFPTA shifts were 19.5 ± 12.3 dB HL and 32.6 ± 17.2 dB HL, respectively; early and long-term HP rates were 61.1% and 50.8%, respectively. For patients with preoperative LFPTA ≤80 dB HL, early and long-term HP rates were 45.5% and 43.7%, respectively. No significant difference was observed in postoperative speech perception performance (CNC, AzBio, HINT) at 3, 6, or 12 months between HP versus non-HP groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HP is feasible using the SME. While electroacoustic stimulation was not studied in this cohort, HP provided no clear advantage in speech perception abilities in this group of patients. The current reporting standard of what constitutes HP candidacy (preoperative LFPTA ≤80 dB HL) should be reconsidered.

Mythbusters! The Truth about Common Misconceptions in Cochlear Implantation

Cochlear implantation (CI) is the preferred method of hearing rehabilitation when patients cannot perform well with traditional amplification. Unfortunately, there are still significant misconceptions around this life-changing intervention. The goal of this article is to address some of the most common myths around CI surgery. After reading this article, the learner will be able to explain the utility of CI in patients with residual hearing and recognize that insurance coverage is widespread. The reader will be able to list common risks associated with this well-tolerated procedure including anesthetic risk and the risk of vestibular dysfunction. Additionally, the reader will be able to identify the significant positive impact of CI on patients' quality of life. Finally, the reader will identify that many patients can safely have an MRI scan after implantation, including nearly all contemporary recipients.

Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Slim Straight and Slim Modiolar Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays

OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in audiologic outcomes between slim modiolar electrode (SME) CI532 and slim lateral wall electrode (SLW) CI522 cochlear implant recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic hospital.

METHODS

Comparison of postoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet (percentage correct) in adult cochlear implant recipients with SME or SLW matched for preoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet and aided and unaided pure tone average.

RESULTS

Patients with SLW (n = 52) and patients with SME (n = 37) had a similar mean (SD) age (62.0 [18.2] vs 62.6 [14.6] years, respectively), mean preoperative aided pure tone average (55.9 [20.4] vs 58.1 [16.4] dB; P = .59), and mean AzBio score (percentage correct, 11.1% [13.3%] vs 8.0% [11.5%]; P = .25). At last follow-up (SLW vs SME, 9.0 [2.9] vs 9.9 [2.6] months), postoperative mean AzBio scores in quiet were not significantly different (percentage correct, 70.8% [21.3%] vs 65.6% [24.5%]; P = .29), and data log usage was similar (12.9 [4.0] vs 11.3 [4.1] hours; P = .07). In patients with preoperative AzBio <10% correct, the 6-month mean AzBio scores were significantly better with SLW than SME (percentage correct, 70.6% [22.9%] vs 53.9% [30.3%]; P = .02). The intraoperative tip rollover rate was 8% for SME and 0% for SLW.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochlear implantation with SLW and SME provides comparable improvement in audiologic functioning. SME does not exhibit superior speech recognition outcomes when compared with SLW.

Initial hearing preservation outcomes of cochlear implantation with a slim perimodiolar electrode array

OBJECTIVE

To assess the slim modiolar array as a hearing preservation electrode.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of adult, post-lingual CI recipients implanted with slim modiolar array Sept 2016 to July 2017 in a tertiary referral center. Baseline audiograms were obtained within six months of initial CI evaluation. Patients with low frequency pure tone average (LFPTA) (125, 250, 500 Hz) <80 dB were considered HP candidates. Postoperative audiograms were obtained within 48 h before activation. Successful HP was considered as (1) retention of LFPTA threshold <80 dB and (2) change in threshold from pre- to post-operative.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients received the slim perimodiolar array and 42 were HP candidates. Post-operative audiograms were obtained for 39 of 42 patients an average of 28.92 days after surgery. 56.4% of HP candidates retainedLFPTA <80 dB. Mean ΔLFPTA was 24.15 dB (±16.14; p < 0.001). 56.4% of HP candidates experienced Δ LFPTA <20 dB; 69.2% <30 dB. Functional hearing preservation was more successful in lower frequencies where starting thresholds were better - 78% with LFPTA <50 dB retained serviceable hearing at activation. The postoperative change was similar in each low frequency (Δ125 Hz: mean 21.25 +/- 14.76 (N = 28); Δ250 Hz: 26.28 +/- 19.29 (N = 39); Δ500 Hz: 25.00 +/- 17.73 (N = 39)).

CONCLUSIONS

The slim perimodiolar array is moderately effective at immediate hearing preservation. In subjects with preoperative audiometric profiles similar to those in prior EAS trials, immediate HP is comparable.