No abstract

Objective To determine audiological outcomes of children who use a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and an auditory brainstem implant (ABI) in the contralateral ear. Design Retrospective case review. Setting Tertiary referral hospital. Participants Twelve children followed with CI and contralateral auditory brainstem implant (ABI) by Hacettepe University Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Audiology in Turkey. All children were diagnosed with different inner ear malformations with cochlear nerve aplasia/hypoplasia. CI was planned in the ear with better sound detection during behavioural testing with inserted ear phones and with better CN as seen on MRI. Due to the limited auditory and speech progress with the cochlear implant, ABI was performed on the contralateral ear in all subjects. Main outcome measures Audiological performance and auditory perception skills of children with cochlear nerve deficiency (CND) who use bimodal electrical stimulation with CI and contralateral ABI. Results Mean age of the subjects was 84.00 ± 33.94 months. Age at CI surgery and ABI surgery was 25.00 ± 10.98 months and 41.50 ± 16.14 months, respectively. However, hearing thresholds only with CI and only with ABI did not reveal significant difference, and auditory perception scores improved with bimodal stimulation. The MAIS scores were significantly improved from unilateral CI to bimodal stimulation (P = .002). Pattern perception and word recognition scores were significantly higher with the bimodal condition when compared to CI only and ABI only conditions. Conclusion Children with CND showed better performance with CI and contralateral ABI combined. Depending on the audiological and radiological results, bimodal stimulation should be advised for children with CND.

ObjectiveTo report device failures, audiological signs and other reasons for revision cochlear implant surgery, and discuss indications for revision surgery.MethodsRevision procedures between November 1997 and August 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Over 20 years, 2181 cochlear implant operations were performed, and 114 patients underwent 127 revision operations.ResultsThe revision rate was 4.67 per cent. The full insertion rate for revision cochlear implant surgery was 88.2 per cent. The most frequent reasons for revision surgery were: device failure (59 per cent), wound breakdown (9.4 per cent) and electrode malposition (8.7 per cent). The device failure rate was: 2.78 per cent for Advanced Bionics, 1.82 per cent for Cochlear and 5.25 per cent for Med-El systems. The number of active electrodes was significantly increased only for Med-El devices after revision surgery. The most common complaints among 61 patients were: gradually decreased auditory performance, sudden internal device shutdown and headaches.ConclusionThe most common reason for revision surgery was device failure. Patients should be evaluated for device failure in cases of: no hearing despite appropriate follow up, side effects such as facial nerve stimulation, and rejection of speech processor use in paediatrics. After revision surgery, most patients have successful outcomes.

Background: Cochlear implantation (CI) is an effective treatment option for patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss. When CI first started, it was recommended to wait until at least 4 weeks after the CI surgery for the initial activation because of possible complications. Advances in the surgical techniques and experiences in fitting have made initial activation possible within 24 h. Objectives: To compare the complaints and complications after early activation between behind-the-ear (BTE) and off-the-ear (OTE) sound processors and to show the impact of early activation on the electrode impedance values. Method: CI surgeries performed between March 2013 and July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed from the database. In total, 294 CI users were included in the present study. The impedance measurements were analyzed postoperatively at the initial activation prior to the stimulation, and 4 weeks after the initial activation in the first-month follow-up visit. A customized questionnaire was administered in the first-month follow-up fitting session to caregivers and/or patients who were using CI at least for 6 months. Medical records were also reviewed to identify any postoperative complications. Results: In the early activation group, impedance values were significantly lower than in the control group (p < 0.05) at first fitting. At the first-month follow-up, no significant difference was found between the groups (p > 0.05). The most common side effects were reported to be edema (6.1%) and pain (5.7%) in the early activation group. In patients with OTE sound processors, the rate of side effects such as skin infection, wound swelling, skin hyperemia, and pain was higher than in patients with BTE sound processors; however, a statistical significance was only observed in wound swelling (p = 0.005). Selecting the appropriate magnet was defined as a problem for the OTE sound processors during the initial activation. Conclusion: This study revealed that early activation of CI was clinically safe and feasible in patients with BTE sound processors. When using OTE sound processors, the audiologists should be careful during the activation period and inform patients of possible side effects. The first fitting should be delayed for 4 weeks after CI for OTE sound processors. This current study is the first to report this finding with 5 years of experience in a large cohort.

The objective of the study was to discuss the findings of intraoperative electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (eABR) test results with a recently designed intracochlear test electrode (ITE) in terms of their relation to decisions of cochlear or auditory brainstem implantation. This clinical study was conducted in Hacettepe University, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Audiology. Subjects were selected from inner ear malformation (IEM) database. Eleven subjects with profound sensorineural hearing loss were included in the current study with age range from 1 year 3 months to 4 years 3 months for children with prelingual hearing loss. There was only one 42-year-old post-lingual subject. eABR was recorded with an ITE and intraoperatively with an original cochlear implant (CI) electrode in 11 cases with different IEMs. Findings of eABR with ITE and their relation to the decision for CI or auditory brainstem implant (ABI) are discussed. Positive eABR test results were found to be dependent on close to normal cochlear structures and auditory nerve. The probability of positive result decreases with increasing degree of malformation severity. The prediction value of eABR via ITE on decision for hearing restoration was found to be questionable in this study. The results of eABR with ITE have predictive value on what we will get with the actual CI electrode. ITE appears to stimulate the cochlea like an actual CI. If the eABR is positive, the results are reliable. However, if eABR is negative, the results should be evaluated with preoperative audiological testing and MRI findings.