Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences.

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.

Objective: The pathogenesis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) remains unknown, but vascular involvement is one of the main hypotheses. The main objective of this study was to investigate the association between ISSHL and cardiovascular and thromboembolic risk factors. Study Design: Multicentric case-control study. Methods: Ninety-six Caucasian patients with ISSHL and 179 sex- and age-matched controls were included. Patients were evaluated on the day of the inclusion and 1 week, 3 weeks and 3 months later. Clinical information concerning personal and familial cardiovascular and thromboembolic risk factors and concerning the ISSHL was collected. Blood samples were collected for genetic analysis of factor V Leiden and G20210A polymorphism in the factor II gene. The severity of the hearing loss was classified as mild (21–40 dB), moderate (41–70 dB), severe (71–90 dB) and profound or total (>90 dB). Hearing improvement was calculated as a relative improvement of hearing thresholds using the contralateral ear as baseline. Results: Systolic blood pressure was higher in patients (130 ± 1.7 mm Hg) than in controls (124 ± 1.1 mm Hg, p = 0.003). The personal/familial history of cardiovascular events was also more prevalent in patients (p = 0.023 and p = 0.014, respectively), whereas no difference was found in the prevalence of personal cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, smoking habits). There was no correlation between the audiogram type, the hearing outcome and the presence of cardiovascular risk factors. No significant difference was observed in the personal/familial history or in the presence of thromboembolic risk factors. The prothrombin and factor V mutations were uncommon in both patients and controls. The final hearing threshold was only correlated with the severity of the initial hearing loss (p < 0.001), but not influenced by the presence of vertigo, audiogram type, time elapsed from onset of ISSHL to hospitalization or failure of a previous oral therapy. Hearing stabilization was obtained at 21 days in 92% of patients. Conclusion: These results support the theory of vascular involvement as the etiology of some cases of ISSHL. The sole predictive factor of poor final hearing is the severity of the initial hearing loss.

The present literature review failed to find any relevant and validated questionnaire assessing the impact of vertigo or dizziness on QoL.

Objective: To evaluate speech performance, in quiet and noise, and localization ability in adult patients who had undergone bilateral and simultaneous implantation. Study Design: Prospective multi-center study. Methods: Twenty-seven adult patients with profound or total hearing loss were bilaterally implanted in a single-stage procedure, and simultaneously activated (Med-El, Combi 40/40+). Subjects were assessed before implantation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after switch-on. Speech perception tests in monaural and binaural conditions were performed in quiet and in noise using disyllabic words, with speech coming from the front and a cocktail party background noise coming from 5 loudspeakers. Sound localization measurements were also performed in background noise coming from 5 loudspeakers positioned from –90° to +90° azimuth in the horizontal plane, and using a speech stimulus. Results: There was a bilateral advantage at 12 months in quiet (77 ± 5.0% in bilateral condition, 67 ± 5.3% for the better ear, p < 0.005) and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio +15 dB: 63 ± 5.9% in bilateral condition, 55 ± 6.9% for the better ear, p < 0.05). Considering unilateral speech scores recorded in quiet at 12 months, subjects were categorized as ‘good performers’ (speech comprehension score ≥60% for the better ear, n = 19) and ‘poor performers’ (n = 8). Subjects were also categorized as ‘asymmetrical’ (difference between their 2 unilateral speech scores ≥20%, n = 11) or ‘symmetrical’ (n = 16). The largest advantage (bilateral compared to the better ear) was obtained in poor performers: +19% compared to +7% in good performers (p < 0.05). In the group of good performers, there was a bilateral advantage only in cases of symmetrical results between the 2 ears (n = 10). In the group of poor performers, the bilateral advantage was shown in both patients with symmetrical (n = 6) and asymmetrical results (n = 2). In bilateral conditions, the sound localization ability in noise was improved compared to monaural conditions in patients with symmetrical and asymmetrical performance between the 2 ears. No preoperative factor (age, duration of deafness, use of hearing aids, etiology, etc.) could predict the asymmetrical performance, nor which ear would be the best. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a bilateral advantage (at 12 months after the implantation) in speech intelligibility and sound localization in a complex noisy environment. In quiet, this bilateral advantage is shown in cases of poor performance of both ears, and in cases of good performance with symmetrical results between the 2 ears. No preoperative factor can predict the best candidates for a simultaneous bilateral implantation.

MCI is highly prevalent in older adults with profound hearing loss. Nevertheless, we observed a low rate of progression to dementia, and cognitive function improved in some individuals with MCI at baseline. These results highlight that cochlear implantation should be strongly considered in profoundly deaf individuals, even those with MCI, who may have a specific subtype of MCI, with a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on neurocognitive functioning.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new transcutaneous bone-conduction implant (BCI BB) in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or with single-sided deafness (SSD), 1 year after surgical implantation. The study design is multicentric prospective, intra-subject measurements. Each subject is his/her own control. The setting is nine university hospitals: 7 French and 2 Belgian. Sixteen subjects with conductive or mixed hearing loss with bone-conduction hearing thresholds under the upper limit of 45 dB HL for each frequency from 500 to 4000 Hz, and 12 subjects with SSD (contralateral hearing within normal range) were enrolled in the study. All subjects were older than 18 years. The intervention is rehabilitative. The main outcome measure is the evaluation of skin safety, audiological measurements, benefit, and satisfaction questionnaires with a 1-year follow up. Skin safety was rated as good or very good. For the mixed or conductive hearing loss groups, the average functional gain (at 500 Hz, 1, 2, 4 kHz) was 26.1 dB HL (SD 13.7), and mean percentage of speech recognition in quiet at 65 dB was 95 % (vs 74 % unaided). In 5/6 SSD subjects, values of SRT in noise were lower with BB. Questionnaires revealed patient benefit and satisfaction. The transcutaneous BCI is very well tolerated at 1-year follow up, improves audiometric thresholds and intelligibility for speech in quiet and noise, and gives satisfaction to both patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss and patients with SSD.

Clinical manifestations of cholesterol granulomas depend on their anatomic location and the involvement of the adjacent structures. Aggressive lesions in patients with residual hearing can be drained via an infralabyrinthine or an infracochlear approach with minimal morbidity. Follow-up must be preferred for patients with nonaggressive lesions. Although magnetic resonance imaging provides a specific diagnosis tool for cholesterol granulomas, computed tomography is essential for an accurate evaluation of the location of the cyst and choice of the surgical procedure.