As the indications for cochlear implant have expanded to include younger patients and individuals with greater degrees of residual hearing, increasing emphasis has been placed on atraumatic surgery and the preservation of the cochlear structure. Here, a descriptive prospective randomized study was performed. It was shown that residual hearing preservation is possible 12 months postoperatively with an atraumatic perimodiolar flexible electrode array CI532® (Cochlear Ltd, Sydney, Australia). Residual hearing preservation, considered as < 15 dB, was obtained in 70% of the cases. Better clinical outcomes and performance could be obtained compared with the previous perimodiolar CI512®, but further research and a longer follow-up are necessary to verify the impact of outcomes.

Objective: To show that patients with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), with one ear fulfilling cochlear implant (CI) indication criteria, and an additional severe tinnitus handicap can be treated effectively with a CI. Method: A prospective multi-centre study was conducted in five Spanish centres. Sixteen adult patients with UHL and a mean Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score of at least 58 were implanted. The study design included repeated within-subject measures of quality of life (Health Utility Index Mark 3 [HUI3]), tinnitus (THI, Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] on tinnitus loudness), hearing (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale– [SSQ]), and hyperacusis (Test de Hipersensibilidad al Sonido [THS]) up to 12 months after the initial CI fitting. Results: Group data showed significant subjective benefit from CI treatment: the preoperative HUI3 total utility score of 0.45 went up to 0.57 at 6 months and 0.63 at 12 months; the preoperative THI total score of 75 decreased to 40 at 6 months and 35 at 12 months. The preoperative tinnitus loudness VAS score of 8.2 decreased to 2.4 at 6 months and 2.2 at 12 months with the implant “On” and to 6.7 at 6 months and 6.5 at 12 months with the implant “Off.” The preoperative THS total score of 26 decreased to 17 at 12 months. The preoperative SSQ total score of 4.2 increased to 5.1 at 6 months and 6.3 at 12 months. No unanticipated adverse events were reported during the study period. At 12 months after CI activation all subjects (except 1 subject who used the device 6 days a week) wore their devices all day and every day. The primary reason for CI use was split evenly between tinnitus suppression (n = 6) and both hearing and tinnitus (n = 6). Conclusion: A CI should be considered as a treatment option in patients with UHL and a concomitant severe tinnitus handicap. However, appropriate counselling of candidates on the anticipated risks, benefits, and limitations that are inherent to cochlear implantation is imperative.

Objectives: To report residual hearing preservation outcomes in patients with low frequency hearing, after cochlear implant (CI) electrode insertion with two types of electrode arrays: one straight and other perimodiolar, when using intraoperative intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) during (CI) electrode insertion. Study Design: Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Tertiary referral otology center. Patients: Fifteen patients ranging from 33 to 54 years old (mean 51.19). They had been diagnosed with a bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss and treated with a unilateral cochlear implant: eight of them with the CI532 and seven of them with the CI522 (Cochlear Ltd, Sydney, Australia). Intervention: Pure-tone audiometry was performed preoperatively and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Interoperatively, intracochlear ECochG was performed using the apical-most electrode. The amplitude of the first harmonic was plotted and monitored in real time by the audiologist-surgeon team during their CI electrode insertion. The different ECoch patterns of the insertion track were recorded and analyzed. Results: In 12 cases ECochG responses were successfully recorded. In three cases no ECochG responses could be recorded with no residual hearing observed postoperatively in two of them. With respect to the first harmonic amplitude changes, we found: four cases with an overall increase in amplitude measured from the beginning of insertion until completion, all of them showed residual hearing (<15 dB HL) at 6 months postoperation. Three cases with an increasing amplitude at the beginning of insertion, with a decrease in amplitude as insertion progressed to completion, in two cases dropping of residual hearing (15–30 dB HL) were observed after 6 months postoperation and, in one case, complete residual hearing was observed at 6 months postoperatively. And finally five cases presented amplitudes at the start of insertion with modifications of amplitude during the insertion dynamic, with increasing and descending in amplitude range during the whole insertion, two of them showed residual hearing at 6 months postoperation and three cases a drop of residual hearing (15–30 dB HL) was observed after 6 months postoperation. No statistical differences between CI532 and CI522 electrodes were found. Data of the ECochG responses are also presented (p value ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: ECochG is a useful tool to evaluate the residual hearing in CI patients with straight and perimodiolar cochlear implant. More studies are needed to fully understand the relationship between ECochG and the presence of residual hearing, cochlear trauma, and functional outcomes.

Background: The proximity of the electrode to the modiolar wall may be of interest to investigate the effect of pitch discrimination. This research establishes the relation between these factors and whether perimodiolar positions may provide benefits regarding improved electrode discrimination. Methods: A prospective randomized study including 24 post-lingual deaf adults was performed. A psychoacoustic study was done by using a psychoacoustic research platform. Radiological study, and a cone-beam computed tomography was used to assess post cochlear implantation electrodes’ position. Trans-impedance matrix (TIM) analysis was performed after cochlear implant insertion in all cases, and pupillometry test was also performed. Results: 12 patients received a slim perimodiolar electrode array, and 12 patients received a straight electrode array. Although all the patients showed similar speech test results after 12 months follow-up, those implanted with a perimodiolar electrode obtained better scores in electrode discrimination test and pupillometry test, and showed more homogenous TIM patterns. Conclusions: The better positioning of the electrode array seams to provide a better hearing resolution and less listening effort trans-impedance matrix seems to be a useful tool to analyze positioning of the perimodiolar array.

A perimodiolar position can be achieved with the new CI532 electrode array. The new electrode also seems to be reliable for atraumatic intracochlear placement in scala tympani (ST).