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.

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.

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.

Aims: The Nucleus CI532 cochlear implant incorporates a new precurved electrode array, i.e., the Slim Modiolar electrode (SME), which is designed to bring electrode contacts close to the medial wall of the cochlea while avoiding trauma due to scalar dislocation or contact with the lateral wall during insertion. The primary aim of this prospective study was to determine the final position of the electrode array in clinical cases as evaluated using flat-panel volume computed tomography. Methods: Forty-five adult candidates for unilateral cochlear implantation were recruited from 8 centers. Eleven surgeons attended a temporal bone workshop and received further training with a transparent plastic cochlear model just prior to the first surgery. Feedback on the surgical approach and use of the SME was collected via a questionnaire for each case. Computed tomography of the temporal bone was performed postoperatively using flat-panel digital volume tomography or cone beam systems. The primary measure was the final scalar position of the SME (completely in scala tympani or not). Secondly, medial-lateral position and insertion depth were evaluated. Results: Forty-four subjects received a CI532. The SME was located completely in scala tympani for all subjects. Pure round window (44% of the cases), extended round window (22%), and inferior and/or anterior cochleostomy (34%) approaches were successful across surgeons and cases. The SME was generally positioned close to the modiolus. Overinsertion of the array past the first marker tended to push the basal contacts towards the lateral wall and served only to increase the insertion depth of the first electrode contact without increasing the insertion depth of the most apical electrode. Complications were limited to tip fold-overs encountered in 2 subjects; both were attributed to surgical error, with both reimplanted successfully. Conclusions: The new Nucleus CI532 cochlear implant with SME achieved the design goal of producing little or no trauma as indicated by consistent scala tympani placement. Surgeons should be carefully trained to use the new deployment method such that tip fold-overs and over insertion may be avoided.

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.