Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation

Matthew L Carlson, Colin L W Driscoll, René H Gifford, Geoffrey J Service, Nicole M Tombers, Becky J Hughes-Borst, Brian A Neff, Charles W Beatty, Matthew L Carlson, Colin L W Driscoll, René H Gifford, Geoffrey J Service, Nicole M Tombers, Becky J Hughes-Borst, Brian A Neff, Charles W Beatty

Abstract

Objective: To describe the relationship between implantation-associated trauma and postoperative speech perception scores among adult and pediatric patients undergoing cochlear implantation using conventional length electrodes and minimally traumatic surgical techniques.

Study design: Retrospective chart review (2002-2010).

Setting: Tertiary academic referral center.

Patients: All subjects with significant preoperative low-frequency hearing (≤70 dB HL at 250 Hz) who underwent cochlear implantation with a newer generation implant electrode (Nucleus Contour Advance, Advanced Bionics HR90K [1J and Helix], and Med El Sonata standard H array) were reviewed.

Intervention(s): Preimplant and postimplant audiometric thresholds and speech recognition scores were recorded using the electronic medical record.

Main outcome measure(s): Postimplantation pure tone threshold shifts were used as a surrogate measure for extent of intracochlear injury and correlated with postoperative speech perception scores.

Results: : Between 2002 and 2010, 703 cochlear implant (CI) operations were performed. Data from 126 implants were included in the analysis. The mean preoperative low-frequency pure-tone average was 55.4 dB HL. Hearing preservation was observed in 55% of patients. Patients with hearing preservation were found to have significantly higher postoperative speech perception performance in the CI-only condition than those who lost all residual hearing.

Conclusion: Conservation of acoustic hearing after conventional length cochlear implantation is unpredictable but remains a realistic goal. The combination of improved technology and refined surgical technique may allow for conservation of some residual hearing in more than 50% of patients. Germane to the conventional length CI recipient with substantial hearing loss, minimizing trauma allows for improved speech perception in the electric condition. These findings support the use of minimally traumatic techniques in all CI recipients, even those destined for electric-only stimulation.

Figures

FIG. 1
FIG. 1
Mean preoperative and postoperative speech perception scores (CNC, AzBio, and BKB-SIN) for the hearing preservation and nonhearing preservation groups. The filled and unfilled bars represent scores for the hearing preservation and nonhearing preservation subjects, respectively.
FIG. 2
FIG. 2
Mean low-frequency postoperative threshold shift among patients within the hearing preservation group.

References

    1. Roland JT., Jr A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and force evaluation: results with a new electrode design and insertion technique. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1325–39.
    1. Balkany TJ, Connell SS, Hodges AV, et al. Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27:1083–8.
    1. Wright CG, Roland PS, Kuzma J. Advanced bionics thin lateral and Helix II electrodes: a temporal bone study. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:2041–5.
    1. Roland PS, Wright CG. Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation: mechanisms of insertional trauma. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;64:11–30.
    1. Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, et al. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear. 2010;31:186–94.
    1. Gantz BJ, Hansen MR, Turner CW, et al. Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14:32–8.
    1. Somdas MA, Li PM, Whiten DM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of new bone and fibrous tissue in the cochlea following cochlear implantation in the human. Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12:277–84.
    1. Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, et al. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124:272–80.
    1. Wardrop P, Whinney D, Rebscher SJ, et al. A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: Comparison of Nucleus banded and Nucleus Contour electrodes. Hear Res. 2005;203:54–67.
    1. Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord. 1962;27:62–70.
    1. Aschendorff A, Kromeier J, Klenzner T, et al. Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear. 2007;28:75S–9S.
    1. Leake PA, Hradek GT, Snyder RL. Chronic electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant promotes survival of spiral ganglion neurons after neonatal deafness. J Comp Neurol. 1999;412:543–62.
    1. Zimmermann CE, Burgess BJ, Nadol JB., Jr Patterns of degeneration in the human cochlear nerve. Hear Res. 1995;90:192–201.
    1. Eshraghi AA, Van de Water TR. Cochlear implantation trauma and noise-induced hearing loss: apoptosis and therapeutic strategies. Anat Rec. 2006;288:473–81.
    1. Spoendlin H. Factors inducing retrograde degeneration of the cochlear nerve. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1984;112:76–82.
    1. Sugawara M, Corfas G, Liberman MC. Influence of supporting cells on neuronal degeneration after hair cell loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005;6:136–47.
    1. Nadol JB, Jr, Shiao JY, Burgess BJ, et al. Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans. The Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2001;110:883–91.
    1. Fayad JN, Linthicum FH., Jr Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:1310–20.
    1. Gassner HG, Shallop JK, Driscoll CL. Long-term clinical course and temporal bone histology after cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2005;6:67–76.
    1. Blamey P. Are spiral ganglion cell numbers important for speech perception with a cochlear implant? Am J Otol. 1997;18:S11–2.
    1. Finley CC, Holden TA, Holden LK, et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29:920–8.
    1. Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Saunders E, et al. Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion. Cochlear Implants Int. 2001;2:135–49.
    1. Erixon E, Hogstorp H, Wadin K, et al. Variational anatomy of the human cochlea: implications for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:14–22.
    1. Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR, et al. In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;197:2–24.
    1. Roland JT, Jr, Zeitler DM, Jethanamest D, et al. Evaluation of the short hybrid electrode in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29:482–8.
    1. Eshraghi AA, Polak M, He J, et al. Pattern of hearing loss in a rat model of cochlear implantation trauma. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:442–7. discussion 47.
    1. Linthicum FH, Jr, Fayad JN. Spiral ganglion cell loss is unrelated to segmental cochlear sensory system degeneration in humans. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:418–22.
    1. Teufert KB, Linthicum FH, Jr, Connell SS. The effect of organ of Corti loss on ganglion cell survival in humans. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27:1146–51.
    1. Fayad J, Linthicum FH, Jr, Otto SR, et al. Cochlear implants: histopathologic findings related to performance in 16 human temporal bones. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100:807–11.
    1. Lenarz T, Stover T, Buechner A, et al. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14:22–31.
    1. Hodges AV, Schloffman J, Balkany T. Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation. Am J Otol. 1997;18:179–83.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe