Outcomes after cochlear reimplantation in children

International audienceOBJECTIVES:With cochlear implantation now a routine procedure, reimplantation is becoming more commonplace for medical/surgical complications or device malfunctions. This study investigated the indications for reimplantation and the auditory outcomes following reimplantation surgery in prelingually-deafened children.METHODS:Of the 539 prelingually deafened children implanted between 1990 and 2013, 45 were reimplanted (8.3% of implantations). Causes of reimplantation, type of device and angle of insertion at initial implantation were recorded, as well as type of implant reinserted, number of electrodes inserted and angle of insertion (calculated on cone beam computed tomography) on reimplantation, and finally any surgical findings. Speech perception test scores (phonetically balanced kindergarten (PBK) words, open-set sentence testing in quiet and in noise (S/N+ 10 dB SNR), and speech tracking scores) were obtained 1, 2 and 3 years after reimplantation, and compared against the best speech recognition score obtained with the first implant before failure.RESULTS:Medical reasons for reimplantation were found in 10 cases (22.2%). A malfunctioning device had occurred in 35 cases (77.7%) including hard failure in 24 and soft failure in 11. Complete insertion was achieved in the scala tympani in 42 cases and in the scala vestibuli in one case; partial insertion occurred in the remaining two cases. In two cases, one or two electrode rings snatched off from the electrode array during removal. The mean insertion angle was 330.5° before surgery and 311.8° after reimplantation (no statistical difference p=0.48). The postoperative speech perception outcome measures showed no significant difference to the best score before reimplantation. Angle of insertion, type of device and etiology of deafness did not influence the results. The PBK performance improved over 10% in 43.2% of children, was similar in 40.5%, and showed a more than 10% decrease in 16.2% of children after reimplantation. The latter decline in performance was explained for some children by a partial insertion.CONCLUSIONS:Reimplantation has no negative effect on auditory outcome. In rare cases, speech perception outcome may not improve, requiring a specific rehabilitation program

Effects of Electrode Array Length on Frequency-Place Mismatch and Speech Perception with Cochlear Implants

International audienceFrequency-place mismatch often occurs after cochlear implantation, yet its effect on speech perception outcome remains unclear. In this article, we propose a method, based on cochlea imaging, to determine the cochlear place-frequency map. We evaluated the effect of frequency-place mismatch on speech perception outcome in subjects implanted with 3 different lengths of electrode arrays. A deeper insertion was responsible for a larger frequency-place mismatch and a decreased and delayed speech perception improvement by comparison with a shallower insertion, for which a similar but slighter effect was noticed. Our results support the notion that selecting an electrode array length adapted to each individual's cochlear anatomy may reduce frequency-place mismatch and thus improve speech perception outcome

Predictive factors of cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly

International audienceObjective - To analyze predictive factors of cochlear implant outcomes and postoperative complications in the elderly. Study design - Prospective, longitudinal study performed in 10 tertiary referral centers. Methods - Ninety-four patients aged 65-85 years with a profound, postlingual hearing loss were evaluated before implantation, at time of activation, and 6 and 12 months after cochlear implantation. Speech perception and lipreading were measured using disyllabic word recognition in quiet and noise, and lipreading using disyllabic words and sentences. The influence of preoperative factors on speech perception in quiet and noise at 12 months was tested in a multivariate analysis. Complications, presence of tinnitus and of vestibular symptoms were collected at each evaluation. Results - The effect of age was observed only in difficult noisy conditions at SNR 0 dB. Lipreading ability for words and sentences was negatively correlated with speech perception in quiet and noise. Better speech perception scores were observed in patients with shorter duration of hearing deprivation, persistence of residual hearing for the low frequencies, the use of a hearing aid before implantation, the absence of cardiovascular risk factors, and in those with implantation in the right ear. General and surgical complications were very rare, and the percentage of vestibular symptoms remained stable over time. Conclusion - This study demonstrates that cochlear implantation in the elderly is a well-tolerated procedure and an effective method to improve communication ability. Advanced age has a low effect on cochlear implant outcome. Analyses of predictive factors in this population provide a convincing argument to recommend treatment with cochlear implantation as early as possible in elderly patients with confirmed diagnosis of a severe-to-profound hearing loss and with only limited benefit from hearing aid use in one ear

Improvement of cognitive function after cochlear implantation in elderly patients

International audienceIMPORTANCE: The association between hearing impairment and cognitive decline has been established; however, the effect of cochlear implantation on cognition in profoundly deaf elderly patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between cognitive function and hearing restoration with a cochlear implant in elderly patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective longitudinal study performed in 10 tertiary referral centers between September 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009. The participants included 94 patients aged 65 to 85 years with profound, postlingual hearing loss who were evaluated before, 6 months after, and 12 months after cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation and aural rehabilitation program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Speech perception was measured using disyllabic word recognition tests in quiet and in noise settings. Cognitive function was assessed using a battery of 6 tests evaluating attention, memory, orientation, executive function, mental flexibility, and fluency (Mini-Mental State Examination, 5-word test, clock-drawing test, verbal fluency test, d2 test of attention, and Trail Making test parts A and B). Quality of life and depression were evaluated using the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and the Geriatric Depression Scale-4. RESULTS: Cochlear implantation led to improvements in speech perception in quiet and in noise (at 6 months: in quiet, 42% score increase [95% CI, 35%-49%; P \textless .001]; in noise, at signal to noise ratio [SNR] +15 dB, 44% [95% CI, 36%-52%, P \textless .001], at SNR +10 dB, 37% [95% CI 30%-44%; P \textless .001], and at SNR +5 dB, 27% [95% CI, 20%-33%; P \textless .001]), quality of life, and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 scores (76% of patients gave responses indicating no depression at 12 months after implantation vs 59% before implantation; P = .02). Before cochlear implantation, 44% of the patients (40 of 91) had abnormal scores on 2 or 3 of 6 cognition tests. One year after implant, 81% of the subgroup (30 of 37) showed improved global cognitive function (no or 1 abnormal test score). Improved mean scores in all cognitive domains were observed as early as 6 months after cochlear implantation. Cognitive performance remained stable in the remaining 19% of the participants (7 of 37). Among patients with the best cognitive performance before implantation (ie, no or 1 abnormal cognitive test score), 24% (12 of 50) displayed a slight decline in cognitive performance. Multivariate analysis to examine the association between cognitive abilities before implantation and the variability in cochlear implant outcomes demonstrated a significant effect only between long-term memory and speech perception in noise at 12 months (SNR +15 dB, P = .01; SNR +10 dB, P \textless .001; and SNR +5 dB, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation of hearing communication through cochlear implantation in elderly patients results in improvements in speech perception and cognitive abilities and positively influences their social activity and quality of life. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effect of cochlear implantation on cognitive decline

Modeling of Auditory Neuron Response Thresholds with Cochlear Implants

International audienceThe quality of the prosthetic-neural interface is a critical point for cochlear implant efficiency. It depends not only on technical and anatomical factors such as electrode position into the cochlea (depth and scalar placement), electrode impedance, and distance between the electrode and the stimulated auditory neurons, but also on the number of functional auditory neurons. The efficiency of electrical stimulation can be assessed by the measurement of e-CAP in cochlear implant users. In the present study, we modeled the activation of auditory neurons in cochlear implant recipients (nucleus device). The electrical response, measured using auto-NRT (neural responses telemetry) algorithm, has been analyzed using multivariate regression with cubic splines in order to take into account the variations of insertion depth of electrodes amongst subjects as well as the other technical and anatomical factors listed above. NRT thresholds depend on the electrode squared impedance (β = -0.11 ± 0.02, P < 0.01), the scalar placement of the electrodes (β = -8.50 ± 1.97, P < 0.01), and the depth of insertion calculated as the characteristic frequency of auditory neurons (CNF). Distribution of NRT residues according to CNF could provide a proxy of auditory neurons functioning in implanted cochleas

A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES: To compare speech perception outcomes between bilateral implantation (cochlear implants [CIs]) and bimodal rehabilitation (one CI on one side plus one hearing aid [HA] on the other side) and to explore the clinical factors that may cause asymmetric performances in speech intelligibility between the two ears in case of bilateral implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects becoming CI/CI) was possible from this dataset. Further analyses were conducted on the CI/CI subgroup to investigate a number of factors, such as implantation side, duration of hearing loss, amount of residual hearing, and use of HAs that may explain asymmetric performances of this subgroup. RESULTS: Intelligibility ranked scores in quiet and in noise were significantly greater with both CI/CI and CI/HA than with a CI-alone group, and improvement with CI/CI (+11% and +16% in quiet and in noise, respectively) was significantly better than with CI/HA (+6% and +9% in quiet and in noise, respectively). From the CI/HA group, only subjects with ranked preoperative aided speech scores >60% performed as well as CI/CI participants. Furthermore, CI/CI subjects displayed significantly lower preoperative aided speech scores on average compared with that displayed by CI/HA subjects. Routine clinical data available from the present database did not explain the asymmetrical results of bilateral implantation. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study, based on basic speech audiometry (no lateralization cues), indicates that, on average, a second CI is likely to provide slightly better postoperative speech outcome than an additional HA for people with very low preoperative performance. These results may be taken into consideration to refine surgical indications for CIs

Absolute numbers of the various etiologies defined in the dataset.

<p>These etiologies are classified by poorest to best speech outcome in quiet with a CI. ANSD: Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. “Miscellaneous” included non-genetic congenital etiologies, cerebral ischemia, drepanocytosis, cephalic trauma without temporal bone fracture, etc. CI recipients presenting with the etiologies encompassed between the two vertical dotted lines showed performances around average, i.e. 50% of speech recognition (not statistically different from average). CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the left part of the dotted lines performed significantly below average. CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the right part of the dotted lines performed significantly better than average. Adapted from Blamey et al (in press).</p

Significant effect of Pure Tone Average thresholds of the better ear on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each pure tone average range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p

Significant effect of percentage of active electrodes on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p