Cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear schwannomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of audiological outcomes.

Abstract

In patients with inner ear schwannomas (IES), reports on hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implants (CI) have increased over the past decade, most of which are case reports or small case series. The aim of this study is to systematically review the reported hearing results with CI in patients with IES considering thedifferent audiologic outcome measures used in different countries. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, a search of published literature was conducted. We included patients with IES (primary or with secondary extension from the internal auditory canal (IAC) to the inner ear, sporadic or NF2 related) undergoing cochlear implantation with or without tumour removal. The audiological results were divided into the categories "monosyllables", "disyllables", "multisyllabic words or numbers", and "sentences". Predefined audiological outcome measures were available from 110 patients and 111 ears in 27 reports. The mean recognition scores for monosyllabic words with CI were 55% (SD:24), for bisyllabic words 61% (SD:36), for multisyllabic words and numbers 87% (SD:25), and 71% (SD:30) for sentences. Results from for multisyllabic words and numbers in general showed a tendency towards a ceiling effect. Possible risk factors for performance below average were higher complexity tumours (inner ear plus IAC/CPA), NF2, CI without tumour removal ("CI through tumour"), and sequential cochlear implantation after tumour removal (staged surgery). Hearing loss in patients with inner ear schwannomas can be successfully rehabilitated with CI with above average speech performance in most cases. Cochlear implantation thus represents a valuable option for hearing rehabilitation also in patients with IES while at the same time maintaining the possibility of MRI follow-up. Further studies should investigate possible risk factors for poor performance. Audiological tests and outcome parameters should be reported in detail and ideally be harmonized to allow better comparison between languages.