Search

Intracochlear schwannomas (ICS) are very rare benign tumours of the inner ear. We present histopathological proof of the extremely rare bilateral occurrence of intracochlear schwannomas with negative blood genetic testing for neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). Bilateral schwannomas are typically associated with the condition NF2 and this case is presumed to have either mosaicism for NF2 or sporadic development of bilateral tumours. For progressive bilateral tumour growth and associated profound hearing loss, surgical intervention via partial cochleoectomy, tumour removal, preservation of the modiolus, and simultaneous cochlear implantation with lateral wall electrode carrier with basal double electrode contacts was performed. The right side was operated on first with a 14-month gap between each side. The hearing in aided speech recognition for consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) phonemes in quiet improved from 57% to 83% 12 months after bilateral cochlear implantation (CI). Bilateral intracochlear schwannomas in non-NF2 patients are extremely rare but should be considered in cases of progressive bilateral hearing loss. Successful tumour removal and cochlear implantation utilizing a lateral wall electrode is possible and can achieve good hearing outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This study used a collaborative approach to explore the needs, barriers, and facilitators to developing cochlear implant referral information material that would be valuable for hard of hearing adults and referring audiologists., Method: During the development of a prototype referral aid to be used within the Australian context, a multistage qualitative study was conducted using a consultative process, informal and semistructured interviews, as well as online surveys. A deductive directed content analysis approach was applied to assess respondents' perspectives. A total of 106 participants (37 hard of hearing adults and 69 audiologists) were involved across the multiple phases of this study., Results: Referral practices for the evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy in Australia are highly inconsistent, supporting the need to streamline referral information. The following facilitators were identified to support the development of referral material: appropriate content, perceived patient benefit, and objectivity. Areas for improvement related to the broadness of the content, impact on professional identity, and accessibility., Conclusions: Practical insight from patients and referrers can inform the development of patient-facing material related to cochlear implant referrals. Streamlining information used in educational material could alleviate confusion inherent to varied health literacy levels and support patients in making informed decisions related to pursuing, or not, cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation services.

Objective: To identify which preoperative patient characteristics influence sequential bilateral cochlear implantation performance and to create a statistical model that predicts benefit., Design: Multicentre retrospective cohort study., Setting: All patients were operated in four academic teaching hospitals in Perth, Australia, and followed up by audiologists of the Ear Science Institute Australia., Participants: A total of 92 postlingually deafened adult patients who had undergone sequential cochlear implantations between 19 June 1990 and 14 March 2016 were included. Patients were excluded if the 12-month follow-up consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) phoneme score was missing., Main Outcome Measure: The effect of 18 preoperative factors on the CNC phoneme score in quiet (at 65 dB SPL) with the second cochlear implant (CI2) one year after implantation., Results: Two factors were positively correlated to speech understanding with CI2: Wearing a hearing aid (HA) before receiving CI2 (r = 0.46, P = 0.00) and the maximum CNC phoneme score with the first CI (CI1) (r = 0.21, P = 0.05). Two factors were negatively correlated: the length of hearing loss before CI2 in the second implanted ear (r = -0.25, P = 0.02) and preoperative pure tone average (PTA) (0.5, 1, 2 kHz) before CI2 in the second implanted ear (r = -0.27, P = 0.01). The following model could be created: predicted CNC phoneme score with CI2 (%) = 16 + (44 * HA use before CI2 (yes)) - (0.22 * length of hearing loss before CI2 (years)) + (0.23 * CNC phoneme score with CI1 (%)). Because the effect of HA use before implantation played such a major role, we also created a model after exclusion of the HA factor: Predicted CNC phoneme score with CI2 (%) = 82 - (0.17 * length of hearing loss before CI2 (years)) - (0.27 * PTA in second implanted ear before CI2 (0.5, 1, 2 kHz)) + (0.20 * CNC phoneme score with CI1 (%))., Conclusion: Advanced age or a long interval between implantations does not necessarily lead to poor CI2 results. Patients who are successful HA users before CI2, who have a low PTA before CI2, a high CNC phoneme score with CI1 and a limited length of hearing loss before CI2, are likely to be successful CI2 recipients., (© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Otolaryngology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

One of the many parameters that can affect cochlear implant (CI) users' performance is the site of presentation of electrical stimulation, from the CI, to the auditory nerve. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements are commonly used to verify nerve function by stimulating one electrode contact in the cochlea and recording the resulting action potentials on the other contacts of the electrode array. The present study aimed to determine if the ECAP amplitude differs between the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea, if double peak potentials were more likely in the apex than the basal region of the cochlea, and if there were differences in the ECAP threshold and recovery function across the cochlea. ECAP measurements were performed in the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea at fixed sites of stimulation with varying recording electrodes. One hundred and forty one adult subjects with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss fitted with a Standard or FLEX SOFT electrode were included in this study. ECAP responses were captured using MAESTRO System Software (MED-EL). The ECAP amplitude, threshold, and slope were determined using amplitude growth sequences. The 50% recovery rate was assessed using independent single sequences that have two stimulation pulses (a masker and a probe pulse) separated by a variable inter-pulse interval. For all recordings, ECAP peaks were annotated semi-automatically. ECAP amplitudes were greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. ECAP slopes were steeper in the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea and ECAP thresholds were lower in the middle region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. The incidence of double peaks was greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. This data indicates that the site and intensity of cochlear stimulation affect ECAP properties.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to establish a statistical definition for stability in cochlear implant maps. Once defined, this study aimed to compare the duration taken to achieve a stable map in first and second implants in patients who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. This article also sought to evaluate a number of factors that potentially affect map stability., Design: A retrospective cohort study of 33 patients with sensorineural hearing loss who received sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia), performed by the senior author. Psychophysical parameters of hearing threshold scores, comfort scores, and the dynamic range were measured for the apical, medial, and basal portions of the cochlear implant electrode at a range of intervals postimplantation. Stability was defined statistically as a less than 10% difference in threshold, comfort, and dynamic range scores over three consecutive mapping sessions. A senior cochlear implant audiologist, blinded to implant order and the statistical results, separately analyzed these psychophysical map parameters using current assessment methods. First and second implants were compared for duration to achieve stability, age, gender, the duration of deafness, etiology of deafness, time between the insertion of the first and second implant, and the presence or absence of preoperative hearing aids were evaluated and its relationship to stability. Statistical analysis included performing a two-tailed Student's t tests and least squares regression analysis, with a statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05., Results: There was a significant positive correlation between the devised statistical definition and the current audiology methods for assessing stability, with a Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.36 and a least squares regression slope (b) of 0.41, df(58), 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.55 (p = 0.004). The average duration from device switch on to stability in the first implant was 87 days using current audiology methods and 81 days using the statistical definition, with no statistically significant difference between assessment methods (p = 0.2). The duration to achieve stability in the second implant was 51 days using current audiology methods and 60 days using the statistical method, and again no difference between the two assessment methods (p = 0.13). There was a significant reduction in the time to achieve stability in second implants for both audiology and statistical methods (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was a difference in duration to achieve stability based on electrode array region, with basal portions taking longer to stabilize than apical in the first implant (p = 0.02) and both apical and medial segments in second implants (p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively). No factors that were evaluated in this study, including gender, age, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, time between implant insertion, and the preoperative hearing aid status, were correlated with stability duration in either stability assessment method., Conclusions: Our statistical definition can accurately predict cochlear implant map stability when compared with current audiology practices. Cochlear implants that are implanted second tend to stabilize sooner than the first, which has a significant impact on counseling before a second implant. No factors evaluated affected the duration required to achieve stability in this study.

Objective: To study the benefits of hearing preservation surgery in cochlear implantation after 2 years., Study Design: A retrospective cohort study., Setting: Performed at a single academic institution between 2008 and 2010, Patients: Thirteen patients (1 bilateral): 43% male and 57% female subjects. Mean age at surgery was 51 years (range, 32-72 yr). Average duration of deafness was 25 years (range, 5-62 yr)., Intervention: Hearing preservation cochlear implantation surgery performed with the Med-El FlexEAS electrode., Main Outcome Measures: Pure tone thresholds, speech perception in quiet and noise and quality of life (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit [GHABP Scales] up to and including 2 years after surgery., Results: At the first postoperative audiogram, the hearing preservation rate was 100% (complete (42.9%), partial (50%), and minimal (7.1%)). After 24 months, the breakdown was complete (25%), partial (12.5%), minimal (37.5%) and complete loss (12.5%). There was a trend in improvement in all areas of APHAB) with significant improvements in the background noise and reverberation categories as well as the global scores. The GHABP scores showed high levels of use, benefit, and low levels of residual disease., Conclusion: Hearing preservation can be achieved in the short term but deteriorates with time over the medium term at a rate greater than that can be expected with the natural progression of the disease. Patients show benefits in speech outcomes and quality of life regardless of whether hearing preservation was achieved in the medium term.