Unilateral tinnitus resulting from single-sided deafness can be treated with electrical stimulation via a CI. The outcomes of this pilot study demonstrate a new method for treatment of tinnitus in select subjects, perhaps an important new indication for cochlear implantation.

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Conclusion Bonebridge (BB) and Sophono (SP) devices improved hearing; with the BB implant showing a better performance at medium and high frequencies. Furthermore, the BB, as an active implant, showed higher functional gain and increased time of use, when compared to the SP, a passive system. Objectives This study aims to compare surgical and audiological outcomes of SP and BB devices in order to assess and further differentiate the indication criteria. Methods Fourteen patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss were evaluated pre- and post-operatively (BB or SP) (period 2013-2014). Age, gender, surgical history, cause and type of hearing loss, implant use per day, levels of bone and air conduction, and functional gain were recorded. Data was analysed by Wilcoxon singed-rank and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results Fourteen patients (BB; n = 10 and SP; n = 4) with an average age = 25.42 years (CI95 = 12.41-38.43) were evaluated. The gender relation was equal (1:1), with pre-implantation osseous thresholds of 20.42 dB (CI95 = 11.15-29.69), and pre-implantation aerial thresholds of 70.83 dB (CI95 = 62.52-79.14). The SP wearing time was significantly lower than that of the BB (SP = 7-10 h/day, BB = 8-12 h/day; p = 0.0323). The functional gain did not differ significantly between the two devices (BB = 40.00 ± 13.19 dB, SP = 34.06 ± 15.63 dB; p = 0.3434), but a significant improvement from pre- to post-implantation was observed (p < 0.05). BB and SP decreased auditory thresholds at 1 and 2 kHz (< 0.01), respectively. The BB even significantly decreased thresholds at 0.5 kHz (p = 0.0140) and 4 kHz (p < 0.0001). No relevant surgical complications were found.

Elderly cochlear implant users experience an improvement in their quality of life, with outcomes similar to those achieved in younger adults. Particular attention must be paid to the possibility of age-related conditions in the elderly that may increase the risks of surgery.

The mean functional gain obtained for all patients evaluated was 62 dB at 0.5 kHz, 60 dB at 1 kHz, 48.3 dB at 2 kHz, and 50.8 dB at 4 kHz. The mean functional gain for all frequencies evaluated was 55.1 dB.