Inner Ear Pharmacotherapy for Residual Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review

The Role of Steroids in the Preservation of Hearing and Vestibular Function in Cochlear Implantation

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implant surgery is guided by principles of atraumatic insertion as to protect the inner ear. Previous studies suggest the potential benefit of steroids in patients undergoing cochlear implantation (CI), although the optimal route of administration has yet to be determined. We aim to systematically review the human studies of hearing and vestibular function preservation in patients undergoing CI receiving perioperative steroids and to discuss their role.

DATA SOURCES

Search performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases in December 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies comparing several methods of steroid delivery and conventional management for patients undergoing CI were identified. Primary outcomes included hearing and vestibular function preservation. Secondary outcomes included reported adverse events, routes of steroid administration, and the presence of a control group without steroid administration.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies (N = 659) met inclusion criteria. Methodology, doses, route of steroid administration, and follow-up duration differed between most studies. Audiometric, vestibular, and hearing preservation (HP) results were inconsistent. In 12 studies, perioperative steroids were associated with either increased HP or vestibular function preservation. Only two studies reported adverse events related to oral corticosteroid therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a tendency for perioperative steroids to have a positive impact, at least in the short term, on hearing and vestibular function preservation in CI. Topical corticosteroid therapy appears to have a superior risk-benefit profile. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized controlled trials to determine the ideal route of steroid administration and its real impact in the long term. Laryngoscope, 2024.

Human Histology after Structure Preservation Cochlear Implantation via Round Window Insertion

OBJECTIVES

Current surgical techniques aim to preserve intracochlear structures during cochlear implant (CI) insertion to maintain residual cochlear function. The optimal technique to minimize damage, however, is still under debate. The aim of this study is to histologically compare insertional trauma and intracochlear tissue formation in humans with a CI implanted via different insertion techniques.

METHODS

One recent temporal bone from a donor who underwent implantation of a full-length CI (576°) via round window (RW) insertion was compared with nine cases implanted via cochleostomy (CO) or extended round window (ERW) approach. Insertional trauma was assessed on H&E-stained histological sections. 3D reconstructions were generated and virtually re-sectioned to measure intracochlear volumes of fibrosis and neo-ossification.

RESULTS

The RW insertion case showed electrode translocation via the spiral ligament. 2/9 CO/ERW cases showed no insertional trauma. The total volume of the cochlea occupied by fibro-osseous tissue was 10.8% in the RW case compared with a mean of 30.6% (range 8.7%-44.8%, N = 9) in the CO/ERW cases. The difference in tissue formation in the basal 5 mm of scala tympani, however, was even more pronounced when the RW case (12.3%) was compared with the cases with a CO/ERW approach (mean of 93.8%, range 81% to 100%, N = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Full-length CI insertions via the RW can be minimally traumatic at the cochlear base without inducing extensive fibro-osseous tissue formation locally. The current study further supports the hypothesis that drilling of the cochleostomy with damage to the endosteum incites a local tissue reaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4: Case-control study Laryngoscope, 134:945-953, 2024.

GelMA/PEDOT:PSS Composite Conductive Hydrogel-Based Generation and Protection of Cochlear Hair Cells through Multiple Signaling Pathways

Recent advances in cochlear implantology are exemplified by novel functional strategies such as bimodal electroacoustic stimulation, in which the patient has intact low-frequency hearing and profound high-frequency hearing pre-operatively. Therefore, the synergistic restoration of dysfunctional cochlear hair cells and the protection of hair cells from ototoxic insults have become a persistent target pursued for this hybrid system. In this study, we developed a composite GelMA/PEDOT:PSS conductive hydrogel that is suitable as a coating for the cochlear implant electrode for the potential local delivery of otoregenerative and otoprotective drugs. Various material characterization methods (e.g., 1H NMR spectroscopy, FT-IR, EIS, and SEM), experimental models (e.g., murine cochlear organoid and aminoglycoside-induced ototoxic HEI-OC1 cellular model), and biological analyses (e.g., confocal laser scanning microscopy, real time qPCR, flow cytometry, and bioinformatic sequencing) were used. The results demonstrated decent material properties of the hydrogel, such as mechanical (e.g., high tensile stress and Young's modulus), electrochemical (e.g., low impedance and high conductivity), biocompatibility (e.g., satisfactory cochlear cell interaction and free of systemic toxicity), and biosafety (e.g., minimal hemolysis and cell death) features. In addition, the CDR medicinal cocktail sustainably released by the hydrogel not only promoted the expansion of the cochlear stem cells but also boosted the trans-differentiation from cochlear supporting cells into hair cells. Furthermore, hydrogel-based drug delivery protected the hair cells from oxidative stress and various forms of programmed cell death (e.g., apoptosis and ferroptosis). Finally, using large-scale sequencing, we enriched a complex network of signaling pathways that are potentially downstream to various metabolic processes and abundant metabolites. In conclusion, we present a conductive hydrogel-based local delivery of bifunctional drug cocktails, thereby serving as a potential solution to intracochlear therapy of bimodal auditory rehabilitation and diseases beyond.

Variability in Perioperative Steroid Therapy Regimen for Cochlear Implantation as It Relates to Hearing Preservation

HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to identify practice trends and association between physician training and administration of perioperative steroids for cochlear implantation (CI) as it relates to hearing preservation.

BACKGROUND

Perioperative steroid therapy regimens are postulated to protect residual hearing and improve hearing preservation outcomes in CI.

METHODS

A 27-question online survey was developed by the senior authors using the Qualtrics Survey Tool, then distributed via email from September to November 2022 to otolaryngologists specializing in otology or neurotology and who practice in the United States or Canada.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 463 physicians, 162 (35.0%) of whom completed the survey. One hundred forty-four (31.1%) responses underwent analysis. All physicians administering preoperative steroids (n = 31) prefer preoperative oral prednisone. Of 143 physicians administering intraoperative steroids, 54.5% prefer intraoperative intravenous dexamethasone. More than half (77.6%) of 85 physicians administering postoperative steroids prefer postoperative oral prednisone. Postoperative steroid administration (p < 0.006) and taper utilization (p < 0.041) were greater among physicians who complete greater than 40 CIs annually (n = 47 [71.2%]; n = 30 [49.2%]) than physicians who complete up to 40 CIs annually (n = 37 [48.7%]; n = 20 [31.3%]), respectively. Physicians practicing for 5 to 20 years after residency are more prevalent in using postoperative steroid tapers than physicians practicing for fewer than 5 years after and more than 20 years after residency (n = 37 [51.4%] versus n = 14 [25.5%], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Consensus is needed about the optimal steroid treatment for CI patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Deep intracochlear injection of triamcinolone-acetonide with an inner ear catheter in patients with residual hearing

Introduction

In a previous study, an inner ear catheter was used to deliver low- and high-dose steroids into the cochlea prior to cochlear implant electrode insertion. With this approach, more apical regions of the cochlea could be reached and a reduction of electrode impedances in the short term was achieved in cochlear implant recipients. Whether intracochlear application of drugs via the catheter is a safe method also for patients with residual hearing has not been investigated hitherto. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the effect of intracochlear triamcinolone application in cochlear implant recipients with residual hearing.

Patients and methods

Patients with residual hearing were administered triamcinolone-acetonide (4 mg/ml; n = 10) via an inner ear catheter just prior to insertion of a MED-EL FLEX28 electrode. Impedances were measured at defined time points (intra-operatively, post-operatively and at first fitting) and retrospectively compared with a control group (no steroid application) and low- and high-dose group. Hearing thresholds were measured preoperatively, 3 days after surgery and at first fitting by pure tone audiometry. Pre- to postoperative hearing loss was determined at first fitting and compared to results from a previous study.

Results

The median hearing loss after implantation (125-1,500 Hz) was 20.6 dB. Four patients (40%) showed a median hearing loss of less than 15 dB, three patients (30%) between 15 and 30 dB and three patients (30%) more than 30 dB. The median hearing loss was similar to the results obtained from our previous study showing a median hearing loss of 24 dB when using FLEX28 electrode arrays.

Conclusion

No difference in residual hearing loss was found when comparing application of triamcinolone-acetonide using an inner ear catheter prior to the insertion of a FLEX28 electrode array to the use of the FLEX28 electrode array without the catheter. Thus, we conclude that application of drugs to the cochlea with an inner ear catheter could be a feasible approach in patients with residual hearing.

Patient Preferences for Long-Term Implant Care in Cochlear, Glaucoma and Cardiovascular Diseases

In the process of developing and implementing innovative implant technologies the consideration of patient preferences can be beneficial for patients, doctors and developers. Nevertheless, in existing literature, there is still scarce knowledge of patients' perspectives on long-term implant care. In this study, three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in the context of cochlear implants (CI, n = 92), glaucoma implants (GI, n = 21) and cardiovascular implants (CVI, n = 23), examining the relative importance of attributes of long-term implant care from the patients' perspective. The participants chose between differently shaped options for implant-related care. The attributes of these care options were generated and selected based on previous literature reviews, group discussions and a diary study with patients. The choice data were analyzed via binary logit regression. In CI-DCE, the technological compatibility of the implant with newer implant models, accessories or devices from other manufacturers was highly valued by participants, whereas in GI-DCE the (in)dependency on glaucoma medication post-implantation had the greatest influence on participants' choice behavior. In CVI-DCE, the attribute with the highest relative importance related to the means of securing long-term treatment success. In all three DCE, shared decision making was relatively important for participants. Our results emphasized the importance of an adequate transfer of technological advancements in implant care for promoting patient benefits, such as the availability of comprehensible, understandable, high-quality information about current developments. Similarly, promoting technological health literacy and further pushing the technological compatibility, durability and safety of implants are directions for future implant development in accordance with patients' preferences. Therefore, the participation of implant wearers in the development process is encouraged.

Personalized Medicine in Otolaryngology: Special Topic Otology

Globally, more than 1.5 billion people experience some degree of hearing loss [...].

The Clinical Effect of Steroids for Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: Conclusions Based on Three Cochlear Implant Systems and Two Administration Regimes

The main aim of this study was to assess the clinical effect of steroids (dexamethasone and prednisone) on hearing preservation in patients who underwent cochlear implantation with different cochlear implant systems (Oticon®, Advanced Bionics®, Med-El®). 147 adult patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled to the study and divided into three groups depending on the brand of cochlear implant they received and participated in all follow-up visits regularly. They were also randomly divided into three subgroups depending on the steroid administration regime: (1) intravenous dexamethasone (0.1 mg/kg body weight twice a day for three days); (2) combined intravenous and oral steroids (dexamethasone 0.1 mg/kg body weight twice a day plus prednisone 1 mg/kg weight once a day); and (3) no steroids (control group). The results were measured by pure tone audiometry (PTA) at three time points: (i) before implantation, (ii) at processor activation, and (iii) 12 months after activation. A hearing preservation (HP) figure was also calculated by comparing the preoperative results and the results after 12 months. Further measures collected were electrode impedance and hearing threshold in the non-operated ear. The highest HP measures (partial and complete) were obtained in the subgroups who were given steroids. Of the 102 patients given steroids, HP was partial or complete in 63 of them (62%). In comparison, partial or complete HP was achieved in only 15 patients out of 45 (33%) who were not given steroids. There were differences between the three cochlear implant groups, with the Med-El and Advanced Bionics groups performing better than the Oticon group (45% and 43% of the former two groups achieved partial or complete HP compared to 20% in the latter). Hearing thresholds in the non-operated ear were stable over 12 months. Generally, impedance was slightly lower in the 12 month follow-up in comparison with the activation period, with the exception of the Oticon group. (4) Conclusions: Pharmacological treatment with steroids in patients undergoing cochlear implantation helps to preserve residual hearing.

The Effect of Pluronic-Coated Gold Nanoparticles in Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implantation-Pilot Study

Introduction: During cochlear implantation, electrode insertion can cause cochlear damage, inflammation, and apoptosis, which can affect the residual hearing. Nanoparticles are increasingly studied as a way to increase the availability of inner ear protective factors. We studied the effect on rats of Pluronic-coated gold nanoparticles (Plu-AuNPs) containing dexamethasone, which were applied locally in the rat’s middle ear following the implant procedure. Methods: Seven rats were used in the study. The right ear served as a model for the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. Following the intracochlear dummy electrode insertion through the round window, Dex-Plu-AuNPs were placed in the round window niche. In the right ear, following the same insertion procedure, free dexamethasone (Dex) was placed in the same manner. Auditory brainstem response thresholds (click stimulus, pure tones at 8 kHz, 16 kHz, 24 kHz, and 32 kHz) were measured before and one week after the procedure. A two-tailed T-test was used for the variables. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Results: In the Dex-Plu-AuNP group, the threshold shift was less than that in the free dexamethasone group, but no statistical significance was noted between the groups. When compared individually, only the 8 kHz frequency showed statistically significant, better results after one week, in favor of the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. The mean postoperative 8 kHz threshold in the Dex-Plu-AuNPs was significantly lower than that of the control group (p = 0.048, t-test). For the other frequencies, statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the mean threshold shifts of the two cohorts. Conclusions: The local application of Plu-AuNPs containing dexamethasone following cochlear implantation may better protect the residual hearing than dexamethasone alone, but a larger sample size is needed to reach a possible statistical significance. Dex-Plu-AuNPs do not seem to cause ototoxicity and may be used as a carrier for other agents. In a clinical setting, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may have the effect of protecting lower frequencies in patients with partial deafness who are candidates for electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). If we consider this tendency, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may also be beneficial for patients with Ménière’s disease.