Implantation For Single-sided Deafness Research Articles

Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: 12 Months Follow-up Results of a European Multicenter Evaluation.

People with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) have particular difficulty understanding speech in noisy listening situations and in sound localization. The objective of this multicenter study is to evaluate the effect of a cochlear implant (CI) in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), particularly regarding sound localization and speech intelligibility with additional interest in electric-acoustic pitch matching. A prospective longitudinal study at 7 European tertiary referral centers was conducted including 19 SSD and 16 AHL subjects undergoing cochlear implantation. Sound localization accuracy was investigated in terms of root mean square error and signed bias before and after implantation. Speech recognition in quiet and speech reception thresholds in noise for several spatial configurations were assessed preoperatively and at several post-activation time points. Pitch perception with CI was tracked using pitch matching. Data up to 12 months post activation were collected. In both SSD and AHL subjects, CI significantly improved sound localization for sound sources on the implant side, and thus overall sound localization. Speech recognition in quiet with the implant ear improved significantly. In noise, a significant head shadow effect was found for SSD subjects only. However, the evaluation of AHL subjects was limited by the small sample size. No uniform development of pitch perception with the implant ear was observed. The benefits shown in this study confirm and expand the existing body of evidence for the effectiveness of CI in SSD and AHL. Particularly, improved localization was shown to result from increased localization accuracy on the implant side.

Health Insurance Coverage of Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

There is increasing interest in providing cochlear implants (CIs) in single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). CI clinics have experienced a range of outcomes when seeking insurance coverage for patients. The study explored the extent to which CI clinics were able to secure insurance coverage and whether there were differences in successfully gaining such coverage. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was used to collect data from US CI clinicians. Respondents were from all regions of the United States and represented a diversity of clinic types including hospitals, university-based clinics, private clinics, and schools. Data were collected during August-October 2021 from 105 respondents regarding their clinic's experience in gaining health insurance coverage for pediatric and adult patients who had SSD or AHL. Strategies that had been used for gaining coverage after an initial denial were explored. Interviews were conducted with some respondents to gain additional insights beyond the survey. There was a substantial increase in the number of SSD operations conducted after 2019, the year when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) manufacturer criteria expanded to include CI in SSD and AHL. Respondents were grouped into four categories based on volume of SSD operations before 2019 (≤10, 11-29, 30-49, and ≥50). The number of SSD operations after 2019 went up in all categories except for the 10 or less category, which declined by 43%. A minority of respondents indicated that they were able to obtain SSD insurance coverage infrequently (5%) or almost never (8%). Peer-to-peer review was the most successful approach to overturning an initial denial. Many clinics note that they are nearly always declined for SSD coverage on the first submission and must appeal. There is variability in CI coverage for SSD and AHL. Some health insurance coverage is available for patients of all ages, although some clinics note more difficulty gaining coverage for children younger than 5 years because of the FDA criteria. Clinicians are most successful at gaining coverage after an initial denial with peer-to-peer review, although the process is time-consuming and delays surgery. Efforts to expand access to CIs in SSD for children and adults who may benefit might best be addressed by reflecting on what was done to expand insurance coverage in bilateral deafness-a process that depended on relevant clinical research; research presented to the FDA for guidelines change; information sharing with the general public and constituencies in the hearing loss field including professionals, parent, and consumer organizations; and ongoing advocacy for change with insurers. To date, outcomes research in young children with CI in SSD is limited. Until such research is conducted and published, insurers will continue to argue that other rehabilitative options are approved and available.

Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness: a single-center experience of 138 cases.

Assess the outcomes in patients who underwent cochlear implant (CI) for single-sided deafness (SSD). All patients affected by SSD who underwent CI at Gruppo Otologico, Piacenza, from October 2012 to May 2022 with at least 6months of follow-up were selected in the study group. The analysis included subjective and objective measures performed pre-operative and up to 24months after surgery. Hearing threshold on both sides was evaluated with a weighted four-frequency average (PTA [0.5kHz + 1kHz + 2kHz + 4kHz]/4) on pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry (Speech Discrimination Score, SDS). The Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ Questionnaire) for binaural hearing benefits and sound localization, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory Questionnaire (THI) and Dizziness Handicap Inventory Questionnaire (DHI) were used for subjective assessment. Data from 138 patients, 69 males and 69 females, (mean age 49years, range 17-77years) underwent CI for SSD were examined. Single-sided hearing deprivation average before undergoing CI surgery was 2.5years (range 3months-35years). There was a significant reduction of THI and DHI scores compared to pre-operative scores alongside a referred improvement in social, physical, and emotional well-being through the SSQ questionnaire. To the best of our knowledge, this paper descried the largest cohort of SSD who underwent CI in a single institution. According to our findings CI in patients affected by SSD represents a valuable tool for an overall improvement of tinnitus and dizziness but also quality of life, after at least 6months of follow-up. Further studies are desirable to improve rehabilitation pathways and possibly set new standards of care of this condition.

(Even Off-Label) Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss Results in Measurable Objective and Subjective Benefit.

To quantify objective and subjective outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with asymmetric hearing loss, including single-sided deafness (SSD) whose candidacy was determined on an ear-specific basis when word recognition was 50% or less. Retrospective case review. Tertiary referral center. The effectiveness of CI in cases of SSD and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) has been described in terms of tinnitus suppression, improved speech recognition in quiet and noise, enhanced localization ability, and improved quality of life. However, CI is not yet routinely offered as a top option or standard of care for these individuals. Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling limits aided word recognition in the ear to be implanted to only 5% in cases of AHL/SSD, which is significantly poorer than 40 to 50%, which is often referenced in cases of bilateral hearing loss. Anecdotal experience suggests that patients with much better preoperative word recognition than 5% can benefit from CI. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all adult CI candidates, with one ear exhibiting consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition scores at least 50% and one ear not meeting CI candidacy (i.e., CNC word recognition >50%). Outcome variables of interest included word and sentence recognition and subjective handicap questionnaires (hearing, tinnitus, dizziness) and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire. Statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech understanding (word, sentence, sentence in noise) was noted for both the SSD and AHL groups in the implanted ear. There were statistically and clinically significant subjective improvements noted for both groups on the Hearing Handicap Inventory, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, and the Speech Spatial Qualities questionnaire by 1 month after activation. There were no significant differences between the AHL and SSD groups on either objective or subjective measures of the implanted ear. Individual word understanding improved for the majority of recipients across both groups and is not dependent on meeting the FDA criteria of less than 5%. Cochlear implantation is a viable option with measurable objective and perceived benefits for recipients with preoperative aided CNC word scores exceeding current FDA labeling. There is no significant difference between the AHL and SSD groups, suggesting that candidacy and outcome expectations should be set based on the ear to be implanted alone, without regard for the ability of the better hearing ear.

Quality standards for adult cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss

Quality standards for adult cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss

Cost Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness.

To analyze the cost effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD). Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model. Adults with single-sided deafness in a high-income country. Unilateral CI was compared with no intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with different cost-effectiveness thresholds ($10,000 to $150,000) for different age, sex, and cost combinations. The calculations were based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), national life expectancy tables, and different cost settings. The health utility values for the QALY were either directly collected from published data, or, derived from published data using a regression model of multiple utility indices (regression estimate). The regression estimate showed an increase of the health utility value from 0.62 to 0.74 for SSD patients who underwent CI. CI for SSD was cost effective for women up to 64 years ($50,000 per-QALY threshold), 80 years ($100,000 per-QALY threshold), and 86 years ($150,000 per-QALY threshold). For men, these values were 58, 77, and 84, respectively. Changing the discount rate by up to 5% further increased the cutoff ages up to 5 years. A detailed cost and age sensitivity analysis is presented and allows testing for cost effectiveness in local settings worldwide. CI is a cost-effective option to treat patients with SSD.

Single-sided deafness: Bone conduction devices or cochlear implantation? A systematic review with meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the studies published on the efficacy of bone conduction devices and cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness, through the evaluation of speech discrimination in noise, sound localization and tinnitus suppression. As a secondary outcome, patient satisfaction is also assessed. DesignA systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL was conducted, including all articles written in English and published in the last 10 years. The outcomes selected were speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus intensity and, secondarily, quality of life assessment. Studies that met prospectively defined criteria were subjected to random effects meta-analyses. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with number CRD42019121444. ResultsNineteen articles reporting a total of 210 patients (95 patients with bone conduction devices and 115 in the cochlear implantation group) were included. The meta-analysis identifies statistically significant benefits in cochlear implantation for sound localization, tinnitus suppression, in global quality of life assessment and in 2 of the 3 subscales of quality of life assessment (ease of communication and reverberation). Bone conduction devices are better regarding speech discrimination in noise and background noise quality of life assessment. ConclusionCochlear implants effectively offer better results in 2 of the 3 evaluated parameters, being a very valid option. Bone conduction devices should continue to be considered in the treatment of these patients because, in addition to allowing better discrimination in noise, patient satisfaction is greater in environments with background noise.

Single-sided deafness: Bone conduction devices or cochlear implantation? A systematic review with meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the studies published on the efficacy of bone conduction devices and cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness, through the evaluation of speech discrimination in noise, sound localization and tinnitus suppression. As a secondary outcome, patient satisfaction is also assessed. DesignA systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL was conducted, including all articles written in English and published in the last 10 years. The outcomes selected were speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus intensity and, secondarily, quality of life assessment. Studies that met prospectively defined criteria were subjected to random effects meta-analyses. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with number CRD42019121444. ResultsNineteen articles reporting a total of 210 patients (95 patients with bone conduction devices and 115 in the cochlear implantation group) were included. The meta-analysis identifies statistically significant benefits in cochlear implantation for sound localization, tinnitus suppression, in global quality of life assessment and in 2 of the 3 subscales of quality of life assessment (ease of communication and reverberation). Bone conduction devices are better regarding speech discrimination in noise and background noise quality of life assessment. ConclusionCochlear implants effectively offer better results in 2 of the 3 evaluated parameters, being a very valid option. Bone conduction devices should continue to be considered in the treatment of these patients because, in addition to allowing better discrimination in noise, patient satisfaction is greater in environments with background noise.

The Influence of Cochlear Implantation on Tinnitus in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review provides an overview of the available studies (published by January 29, 2018) with descriptive data analysis about the influence of cochlear implantation on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Original studies about the influence of cochlear implantation on tinnitus, measured with different tinnitus questionnaires or visual analog scale, in patients with SSD were included. The pre- and postimplantation tinnitus scores of the included studies were extracted for the further systematic review. The systematic search yielded 1028 studies. After evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts, 1011 of these were dismissed. From the remaining 17 studies, 4 showed a low directness of evidence or high risk of bias and were therefore excluded. Due to the nature of cochlear implantation in SSD, only cohort studies and no randomized trials exist, which limits the evaluation in a systematic review. Generally, the mean tinnitus questionnaire scores decreased after cochlear implantation in these 13 studies with a total of 153 patients. The most widely used tinnitus questionnaire was the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. In these studies, 34.2% of patients demonstrated complete suppression, 53.7% an improvement, 7.3% a stable value, and 4.9% an increase of tinnitus, and none of the patients reported an induction of tinnitus. This review shows a clear improvement of tinnitus complaints after cochlear implantation in patients with SSD. Therefore, tinnitus might be considered as an additional indication for cochlear implantation in SSD.

Patient benefit from Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness: a 1-year follow-up.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life and benefit in patients with single-side deafness before and 1year after cochlear implantation. In a prospective observational study design, ten adult patients with single-sided deafness undergoing cochlear implantation were included. All patients had on the implantation side no speech discrimination with normal hearing aids. The contralateral side was normal or marginal hearing loss. For determining the subject benefit from cochlear implantation, each patient answered standardized questionnaires directly before implantation and 1year after. Regarding the questionnaire Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ), the tests yielded a significant difference in the subdomains "speech intelligibility" and "spatial hearing". The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) showed a significant difference in the subdomain "basic sound perception", but not in the total score. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) showed on average moderate satisfaction in the subdomains "hearing aid benefit" and "residual disability". In general quality of life, no significant difference was found measured by the questionnaire EQ-5D-3L. One year after cochlear implantation, most patients with single-sided deafness showed benefits in hearing as measured by validated questionnaires However, not all patients reported a significant improvement in general quality of life. Therefore, it is important to inform patients adequately and offer alternative treatments before implantation.

Expanding Cochlear Implant Criteria: Real World Applications and Outcomes

This article discusses the evolution, current criteria, expanded/expanding indications, and potential future indications for cochlear implants. Some of these areas of expansion include earlier implantation in pediatrics, electroacoustic stimulation for both adults and pediatrics, cochlear implants for single-sided deafness, significant asymmetric hearing loss, and cases of severe debilitating tinnitus associated with hearing loss. Note: Some of the discussion in this article is viewed/regarded as off label from the current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria. The authors' intent for this article is for it to be a helpful overview in the current trends that are changing in cochlear implants. This article is not indented to be a definitive paper about new trends in cochlear implants.

Cochlear Implants in Children: Recent Advances

ABSTRACT Cochlear implants (CIs) are the best-performing neural prostheses today. Clinical data have demonstrated that early implantation facilitates advancements in auditory, cognitive and developmental milestones, enabling children to succeed in mainstream schools. With recent improvements in engineering design, signal processing, as well as surgical and rehabilitation techniques, CIs have ushered in expanded candidacy criteria. This review aims to provide a critical evaluation of recent developments in CI strategies --specifically within the areas of implantation of malformed inner ears, outcomes following bilateral CIs, implantation for single-sided deafness and newer, adjuvant biological therapies to augment CI technology. How to cite this article Isaiah A, Lee KH. Cochlear Implants in Children: Recent Advances. Int J Head Neck Surg 2016;7(2):115-119.

Auditory Rehabilitation - Cochlear Implantation

The first cochlear implant was approved about 30 years ago. It just provided a limited sensation of sound and facilitated lip-reading based communication. Recent advances in the cochlear implant system and surgical techniques have enabled the majority of recipients to communicate orally without visual cues. The cochlear implantation has become a standard means of auditory rehabilitation for profound sensorineural deafness. To evaluate candidacy for cochlear implantation, an objective and behavioural audiological test, imaging and functional studies to identify the status of the cochlea and the auditory nerve, and evaluation of additional medical conditions are needed. Although the cochlear implantation can restore auditory function, sound perceived with the cochlear implant is different from normal hearing. Therefore postoperative rehabilitation is crucial for good speech performance. Nowadays, the indications for cochlear implantation have been extended. Hearing loss patients with residual low-frequency hearing could be candidates for cochlear implantation. Therefore, residual hearing preservation during cochlear implantation has been an important issue. In addition, bilateral cochlear implantation, cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness and fully implantable cochlear implant systems have been receiving more attention. The purpose of this article is to review current knowledge concerning the cochlear implantation.

Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness: the outcomes. An evidence-based approach

The aim of the present paper is to critically review the current evidence on the efficacy of cochlear implantation as a treatment modality for single-sided deafness (SSD), and/or unilateral tinnitus. Systematic literature review in Medline and other database sources was conducted along with critical analysis of pooled data. The study selection includes prospective and retrospective comparative studies, case series and case reports. The total number of analyzed studies was 17. A total of 108 patients with SSD have been implanted; 66 patients due to problems associated with SSD, and 42 primarily because of debilitating tinnitus. Cochlear implantation in SSD leads to improved sound localization performance and speech perception in noise from the ipsilateral side with an angle of coverage up to (but not including) 90(°) to the front, when noise is present in the contralateral quartile (Strength of recommendation B). Speech and spatial hearing also subjectively improve following the insertion of a cochlear implant (Strength of recommendation B); this was not the case regarding the quality of hearing. Tinnitus improvement was also reported following implant placement (Strength of recommendation B); however, patients need to be advised that the suppression is mainly successful when the implant is activated. The overall quality of the available evidence supports a wider use of cochlear implantation in SSD following appropriate selection and counseling (overall strength of recommendation B). It remains to be seen if the long-term follow-up of large number of patients in well conducted high quality studies will confirm the above mentioned results.

Re

To the Editor Dr. Snapp eloquently recognizes many of the problems and difficulties raised with respect to patient expectations in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness (SSD) using bone-anchored implants (BAIs). She rightly asserts that “clinicians must be clear in identifying what the implant system will be able to accomplish for the patient.” She also observes that “BAIs are merely a means to provide access to sound arriving at the deaf ear” and that “BAIs do not overcome the loss of localization ability for these patients.” Unfortunately, by presenting an article that focuses upon speech-in-noise testing, she risks suggesting that this is a handicap that can be effectively treated with BAIs. Although she has been able to show a significant reduction in signal-to-noise ratio loss using the BAI, it is important to recognize the artificiality of the test used and the particularly favorable protocol chosen. In this context, the QuickSIN test is more a test of the lifting of the head-shadow than of speech comprehension in noise characterized by binaural squelch and sophisticated interhemispheric “top-down” auditory processing. By presenting noise to the hearing ear and speech to the implanted ear, the researchers have demonstrated the aided benefit seen in other studies (1–4) without seeing the aided handicap imposed by the BAI if noise—rather than signal—is presented to the implanted ear. This handicap—the introduction of unwanted and distracting noise—emphasizes that the BAI is a “means to provide access to sound arriving at the deaf ear” whether that be “good” sound or “bad.” There can be no doubt that a significant number of patients with SSD derive benefit from BAIs and the relief from the head-shadow they offer. This benefit, however, is not due to improved speech-in-noise comprehension as it is perceived by binaurally hearing individuals, as it is not due to improved sound localization: such benefits are only seen when a physiological and anatomically bilateral auditory pathway is reestablished, as is possible in a proportion of patients with SSD. Initial studies of cochlear implantation (CI) suggest that this may be feasible (5–7). The study by Arndt et al. (6)—the first to compare BAI and CI for this indication—reports improved subjective and objective outcomes with CI and does not find any negative impact arising from noise being presented to the aided ear. Experience of cochlear implantation in SSD is promising but limited, and further research is required. We would advocate a protocol using auditory scene analysis (8), which considers the ways that auditory objects are identified and perceived in the environment to investigate any benefits of true binaural hearing in rehabilitated SSD patients. If cochlear implantation proves effective in this regard, it might be time to move away from the partial solutions offered by BAIs toward a more radical form of rehabilitation in those selected cases who feel sufficiently handicapped by SSD. Thomas Peter Cutlack Martin, FRCS (ORL-HNS) Skull Base Fellow ENT Department Addenbrooke’s Hospital Hill’s Road Cambridge, U.K. David Baguley, Ph.D. Audiology Department Addenbrooke’s Hospital Hill’s Road Cambridge, U.K.

Prevalence of labyrinthine ossification in CT and MR imaging of patients with acute deafness to severe sensorineural hearing loss

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of labyrinthine ossification, and especially cochlear ossification, in a cohort of patients with unilateral sudden deafness or severe sensorineural hearing loss. Design: Retrospective data collection. Study sample: Sixty-four consecutive patients with unilateral sudden deafness or severe sensorineural hearing loss and either high-resolution CT (HRCT) of the temporal bone (isotropic spatial resolution ≤ 0.8 mm; n = 18) or high resolution CISS MRI (isotropic spatial resolution ≤ 1 mm; n = 55) were included. Nine patients underwent both imaging modalities. A standardized reading regarding labyrinthine ossifications was performed by an experienced head and neck radiologist blinded to clinical symptoms. Results: Radiologic signs of cochlear ossification were present in 14 patients (12 CT and 2 MRI). Eight patients showed unilateral and six patients bilateral signs of cochlear ossification. In all except one of the unilateral cases, the deafened ear was affected. Conclusions: Signs of cochlear ossification were found in an unexpectedly high rate (14/64, 22%) of patients with acute deafness. The data suggest HRCT of the temporal bone to be more sensitive to detect labyrinthine ossification than MRI. HRCT of the temporal bone should therefore be considered in patients with impaired recovery of acute deafness to exclude cochlear ossification; if present, and, in cases of early signs, the patient should be evaluated further to facilitate early cochlear implantation before progression impedes electrode insertion, reflecting latest developments considering cochlea implants for single-sided deafness to be effective.

Review

Tinnitus is a symptom that is highly associated with hearing loss. Its incidence is expected to increase due to the detrimental effects of occupational and leisure noise. Even though no standard treatment is currently available, the effect of cochlear implants on tinnitus in single-sided deafness (SSD) is under scientific attention. This review reveals an overview of all publicly available reports about cochlear implant as a treatment for tinnitus in SSD. Cochlear implantation in SSD suppresses tinnitus in most of the cases. Some studies even demonstrate complete tinnitus suppression after implantation. No tinnitus worsening is reported in any of the cases. Furthermore, tinnitus does not restore during the electrical stimulation presented by the cochlear implant. The tinnitus level seems to stabilize after 3-6 months after the first fitting. Although the underlying mechanism responsible for the observed tinnitus suppression is not yet clear, cochlear implantation should be considered as a treatment option for tinnitus arising from SSD. However, appropriate patient selection is essential as it is expected that it is a requirement that tinnitus arises from cochlear deafferentation.

Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness for enhancement of sound localization and speech perception

To examine the current literature regarding application of cochlear implantation in patients with single-sided deafness for improvement in sound localization. As familiarity of the technical and biological capabilities of cochlear implantation improves and criteria for use broaden, investigators have begun examining usage of cochlear implantation in patients with single-sided deafness as a viable solution in attempts to improve sound localization and speech perception. Although studies of such application are limited, from the available published literature, modest benefits have been described in both sound localization and speech perception. Patients consistently report improvement in quality of life after cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness. Although single-sided deafness is not a currently approved indication for cochlear implantation, limited investigational studies to date have demonstrated patient improvement in both sound localization and speech perception.

B076 Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness improves spatial hearing and tinnitus

B076 Cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness improves spatial hearing and tinnitus