The programming of CIs is essential for good performance. However, no Good Clinical Practice guidelines exist. This paper reports on the results of an inventory of the current practice worldwide. A questionnaire was distributed to 47 CI centers. They follow 47600 recipients in 17 countries and 5 continents. The results were discussed during a debate. Sixty-two percent of the results were verified through individual interviews during the following months. Most centers (72%) participated in a cross-sectional study logging 5 consecutive fitting sessions in 5 different recipients. Data indicate that general practice starts with a single switch-on session, followed by three monthly sessions, three quarterly sessions, and then annual sessions, all containing one hour of programming and testing. The main focus lies on setting maximum and, to a lesser extent, minimum current levels per electrode. These levels are often determined on a few electrodes and then extrapolated. They are mainly based on subjective loudness perception by the CI user and, to a lesser extent, on pure tone and speech audiometry. Objective measures play a small role as indication of the global MAP profile. Other MAP parameters are rarely modified. Measurable targets are only defined for pure tone audiometry. Huge variation exists between centers on all aspects of the fitting practice.

Objectives: Extracochlear electrodes in cochlear implants (CI), defined as individual electrodes on the electrode array located outside of the cochlea, are not a rare phenomenon. The presence of extracochlear electrodes frequently goes unnoticed and could result in them being assigned stimulation frequencies that are either not delivered to, or stimulating neurons that overlap with intracochlear electrodes, potentially reducing performance. The current gold-standard for detection of extracochlear electrodes is computed tomography (CT), which is time-intensive, costly and involves radiation. It is hypothesized that a collection of Stimulation-Current-Induced Non-Stimulating Electrode Voltage recordings (SCINSEVs), commonly referred to as “transimpedance measurements (TIMs)” or electric field imaging (EFI), could be utilized to detect extracochlear electrodes even when contact impedances are low. An automated analysis tool is introduced for detection and quantification of extracochlear electrodes. Design: Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric heads were implanted with the Advanced Bionics HiRes90K with a HiFocus 1J lateral-wall electrode. The cochlea was flushed with 1.0% saline through the lateral semicircular canal. Contact impedances and SCINSEVs were recorded for complete insertion and for 1 to 5 extracochlear electrodes. Measured conditions included: air in the middle ear (to simulate electrodes situated in the middle ear), 1.0% saline in the middle ear (to simulate intraoperative conditions with saline or blood in the middle ear), and soft tissue (temporal muscle) wrapped around the extracochlear electrodes (to simulate postoperative soft-tissue encapsulation of the electrodes). Intraoperative SCINSEVs from patients were collected, for clinical purposes during slow insertion of the electrode array, as well as from a patient postoperatively with known extracochlear electrodes. Results: Full insertion of the cochlear implant in the fresh-frozen human cadaveric heads with a flushed cochlea resulted in contact impedances in the range of 6.06 ± 2.99 kΩ (mean ± 2SD). Contact impedances were high when the extracochlear electrodes were located in air, but remained similar to intracochlear contact impedances when in saline or soft tissue. SCINSEVs showed a change in shape for the extracochlear electrodes in air, saline, and soft tissue. The automated analysis tool showed a specificity and sensitivity of 100% for detection of two or more extracochlear electrodes in saline and soft tissue. The quantification of two or more extracochlear electrodes was correct for 84% and 81% of the saline and soft tissue measurements, respectively. Conclusions: Our analysis of SCINSEVs (specifically the EFIs from this manufacturer) shows good potential as a detection tool for extracochlear electrodes, even when contact impedances remain similar to intracochlear values. SCINSEVs could potentially replace CT in the initial screening for e...

MRI scanning without magnet removal is safe and well tolerated in NF2 patients with auditory implants. With appropriate MRI sequences, the image quality is not significantly impaired.

Cochlear implantation can lead to open set speech discrimination in patients with NF2 in the presence of a stable VS. Use of promontory stimulation and intraoperative electrically evoked auditory brainstem response testing, along with case history, can inform the decision whether to implant an ABI or CI.

Objective: To assess the complication rate of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using 1.5 T scanners on cochlear implant (CI) and auditory brainstem implant (ABI) recipients over 14.5 years. Methods: Prospective study conducted in a tertiary referral center for cochlear and auditory brainstem implantation, including patients with neurofibromatosis 2. The primary outcome was complications related to MRI scanning in implant recipients, including failure to complete MRI sessions. The secondary outcome was magnet void size due to MRI scanning with magnet in situ. Results: Ninety-seven patients (21 ABI recipients, 76 CI recipients of whom 23 were bilateral) underwent a total of 428 MRI sessions consisting of 680 MRI procedures, which generated 2,601 MRI sequences (excluding localizers). Of these, 28/428 (6.5%) MRI sessions were performed with magnet removed, and the remaining 400/428 (93.4%) with the magnet in situ. The overall complication rate per session was 15/428 (3.5%). The majority of complications were accounted for by patient discomfort, in some cases requiring abandoning the scan session, but 5 magnet dislocations were also recorded. There were no cases of implant device failure or excessive demagnetization of the receiver stimulator magnet. For CI and ABI recipients, the implant caused large voids of around 110 mm × 60 mm with the magnet in situ which reduced to 60 mm × 30 mm when the magnet was removed. However, it was usually possible to visualize the internal acoustic meatus and cerebellopontine angle by positioning the implant package higher and further forward compared with conventional positioning. Conclusion: MRI scanning in ABI and CI recipients is generally safe and well tolerated without magnet removal, and carries a low rate of complications. However, patients should be fully informed of the possibility of discomfort, and precautions such as local anesthetic injection and head bandaging may reduce the likelihood of adverse events.