Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 20(04): 353-358
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1572530
Original Research
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Residual Hearing Preservation with the Evo® Cochlear Implant Electrode Array: Preliminary Results

Ricardo Ferreira Bento
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Fabiana Danieli
2   Clinical Department, Oticon Medical, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães
3   Department of Audiology, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Dan Gnansia
4   Department of Scientific and Clinical Research, Oticon Medical, Vallauris, France
,
Michel Hoen
4   Department of Scientific and Clinical Research, Oticon Medical, Vallauris, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

06 October 2015

15 November 2015

Publication Date:
16 February 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The preservation of residual hearing is currently an important challenge for cochlear implant surgeries. Indeed, if patients exhibit functional hearing after cochlear implantation, they can benefit from the combination of acoustical stimulation, usually in the low-frequencies and electrical stimulation in the high-frequencies. This combined mode of stimulation has proven to be beneficial both in terms of speech perception and of sound quality. Finding the right procedures for conducting soft-surgeries and designing electrode arrays dedicated to hearing preservation is an open issue.

Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the combination of a soft-surgery procedure implicating round-window insertion and the use of dexamethasone and hyaluronic acid during surgery, with the use of a specifically designed straight soft electrode array, on hearing preservation in patients with functional hearing in the low frequencies.

Methods This pre-clinical trial was conducted on seven patients with residual hearing in the low frequencies. The surgical method used employed a round window insertion and the use of topical dexamethasone.

Results The soft-surgery protocol could be successfully followed in five patients. In this group, the average hearing threshold shift compared with pre-operative values was of 18.7 +/− 16.1 dB HL up to 500 Hz and 15.7 +/− 15.1 up to 1 kHz, demonstrating satisfying levels of hearing preservation.

Conclusion We were able to demonstrate the possibility of preserving residual hearing in most of the patients using the EVO electrode. Significant residual hearing preservation levels were was obtained when a soft surgical approach involving round window insertion, dexamethasone and hyaluronic use during the surgery.

Keywords

cochlear implantation - cochlear round window - residual hearing - hearing preservation - dexamethasone
 

  • References

  • 1 Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (5) 796-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Skarzynski H , et al. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (4) 413-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Richard C, Fayad JN, Doherty J, Linthicum Jr FH. Round window versus cochleostomy technique in cochlear implantation: histologic findings. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (7) 1181-1187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nordfalk KF, Rasmussen K, Bunne M, Jablonski GE. Deep round window insertion versus standard approach in cochlear implant surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kuthubutheen J, Coates H, Rowsell C, Nedzelski J, Chen JM, Lin V. The role of extended preoperative steroids in hearing preservation cochlear implantation. Hear Res 2015; 327: 257-264
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chang A, Eastwood H, Sly D, James D, Richardson R, O'Leary S. Factors influencing the efficacy of round window dexamethasone protection of residual hearing post-cochlear implant surgery. Hear Res 2009; 255 (1–2) 67-72
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Laszig R, Ridder GJ, Fradis M. Intracochlear insertion of electrodes using hyaluronic acid in cochlear implant surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116 (5) 371-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Miroir M, Nguyen Y, Kazmitcheff G, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Grayeli AB. Friction force measurement during cochlear implant insertion: application to a force-controlled insertion tool design. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (6) 1092-1100
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Ramos BF, Tsuji RK, Bento RF , et al. Hearing preservation using topical dexamethasone alone and associated with hyaluronic acid in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2015; 135 (5) 473-477
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nguyen Y, Mosnier I, Borel S , et al. Evolution of electrode array diameter for hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2013; 133 (2) 116-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brown KD, Melton MF, Shonfield H, Kraskin M, Wolf J. Preserved low-frequency hearing following 20-mm cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (2) 240-243
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vaerenberg B, Péan V, Lesbros G , et al. Combined electric and acoustic hearing performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place, and temporal coding evaluation. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14 (3) 150-157
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guevara N, Sterkers O, Bébéar JP , et al. Multicenter evaluation of the digisonic SP cochlear implant fixation system with titanium screws in 156 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010; 119 (8) 501-505
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Carvalho GM, Guimarães AC, Danieli F , et al. Evaluation of the Digisonic® SP cochlear implant: patient outcomes and fixation system with titanium screws. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 78 (6) 56-62
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nguyen Y, Miroir M, Kazmitcheff G , et al. Cochlear implant insertion forces in microdissected human cochlea to evaluate a prototype array. Audiol Neurootol 2012; 17 (5) 290-298
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Martins GdeS, Brito Neto RV, Tsuji RK, Gebrim EM, Bento RF. Evaluation of intracochlear trauma caused by insertion of cochlear implant electrode arrays through different quadrants of the round window. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 236364
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Brown RF, Hullar TE, Cadieux JH, Chole RA. Residual hearing preservation after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (8) 1221-1226
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Garcia-Ibanez L, Macias AR, Morera C , et al. An evaluation of the preservation of residual hearing with the Nucleus Contour Advance electrode. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (6) 651-664
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jurawitz MC, Büchner A, Harpel T , et al. Hearing preservation outcomes with different cochlear implant electrodes: Nucleus® Hybrid™-L24 and Nucleus Freedom™ CI422. Audiol Neurootol 2014; 19 (5) 293-309
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Santa Maria PL, Domville-Lewis C, Sucher CM, Chester-Browne R, Atlas MD. Hearing preservation surgery for cochlear implantation—hearing and quality of life after 2 years. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (3) 526-531
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bruce IA, Felton M, Lockley M , et al. Hearing preservation cochlear implantation in adolescents. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (9) 1552-1559
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Havenith S, Lammers MJ, Tange RA , et al. Hearing preservation surgery: cochleostomy or round window approach? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (4) 667-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Adunka OF, Dillon MT, Adunka MC, King ER, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA. Cochleostomy versus round window insertions: influence on functional outcomes in electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (4) 613-618
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hassepass F, Aschendorff A, Bulla S , et al. Radiologic Results and Hearing Preservation With a Straight Narrow Electrode via Round Window Versus Cochleostomy Approach at Initial Activation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (6) 993-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sun CH, Hsu CJ, Chen PR, Wu HP. Residual hearing preservation after cochlear implantation via round window or cochleostomy approach. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (7) 1715-1719
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zhou L, Friedmann DR, Treaba C, Peng R, Roland Jr JT. Does cochleostomy location influence electrode trajectory and intracochlear trauma?. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (4) 966-971
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nguyen Y, Bernardeschi D, Kazmitcheff G , et al. Effect of embedded dexamethasone in cochlear implant array on insertion forces in an artificial model of scala tympani. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (2) 354-358
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sircoglou J, Gehrke M, Tardivel M, Siepmann F, Siepmann J, Vincent C. Trans-Oval-Window Implants, A New Approach for Drug Delivery to the Inner Ear: Extended Dexamethasone Release From Silicone-based Implants. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (9) 1572-1579
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bronkhorst AW. The cocktail-party problem revisited: early processing and selection of multi-talker speech. Atten Percept Psychophys 2015; 77 (5) 1465-1487
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Varnet L, Knoblauch K, Serniclaes W, Meunier F, Hoen M. A psychophysical imaging method evidencing auditory cue extraction during speech perception: a group analysis of auditory classification images. PLoS ONE 2015; 10 (3) e0118009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Goldsworthy RL. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2015; 16 (6) 797-809
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar