Search

Objective: Comprehensively assess the prevalence of monopolar electrosurgery‐related device complications among cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Study Design: Multifaceted retrospective review and survey. Setting: Tertiary medical center. Methods: Multifaceted approach including: (i) review of the current literature; (ii) historical review of institutional data from an academic, tertiary CI center; (iii) review of industry data provided by 3 Food and Drug Administration‐approved CI manufacturers; and (iv) survey of high‐volume CI centers. Results: Literature review identified 9 human studies, detailing 84 devices with 199 episodes of device‐cautery exposure. From studies reporting on patients records, no implant showed evidence of damage after exposure. One cadaveric study using dental cautery reported 1 episode of device damage. Review of institutional records did not identify any CI damage in 84 instances of exposure. Data from the 3 major implant manufacturers showed a single report of damage that could be reasonably linked to monopolar electrosurgery, out of a possible 689,426 CIs. Last, a survey of 8 high‐volume CI centers did not identify any adverse events associated with monopolar cautery. Conclusion: These data estimate the risk of adverse device‐related events or tissue injury to be extraordinarily low. Short of operating in immediate proximity to the CI (ie, the ipsilateral temporoparietal scalp), these data indicate that monopolar electrosurgery can be used in the body and the head‐and‐neck of CI recipients with nominal risk. These findings may guide decision‐making in cases that are optimally or preferably performed with monopolar electrocautery and can be used to counsel CI patients following inadvertent exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: to review evidence on the efficacy of auditory training in adult cochlear implant recipients. Data Sources: PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review of the literature were followed. PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were queried on 29 June 2023 for terms involving cochlear implantation and auditory training. Studies were limited to the English language and adult patient populations. Study Selection: Three authors independently reviewed publications for inclusion in the review based on a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria encompassed adult cochlear implant populations, an analysis of clinician- or patient-directed auditory training, and an analysis of one or more measures of speech recognition and/or patient-reported outcome. Exclusion criteria included studies with only pediatric implant populations, music or localization training in isolation, and single-sample case studies. Data Extraction: The data were collected regarding study design, patient population, auditory training modality, auditory training timing, speech outcomes, and data on the durability of outcomes. A quality assessment of the literature was performed using a quality metric adapted from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group guidelines. Data Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: Data were qualitatively summarized for 23 studies. All but four studies demonstrated significant improvement in at least one measured or patient-reported outcome measure with training. For 11 studies with sufficient data reporting, pre-intervention and post-intervention pooled means of different outcome measures were compared for 132 patients using meta-analysis. Patient-direct training was associated with significant improvement in vowel-phoneme recognition and speech recognition in noise (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively), and clinician-directed training showed significant improvement in sentence recognition in noise (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The literature on auditory training for adult cochlear implant recipients is limited and heterogeneous, including a small number of studies with limited levels of evidence and external validity. However, the current evidence suggests that auditory training can improve speech recognition in adult cochlear implant recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cochlear implantation has become the standard of care for the treatment of moderate-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. However, current technologies, all of which rely on an external sound processor, have intrinsic limitations that prevent certain activities and diagnostics, thus hampering full integration into a patient's lifestyle. The Envoy Medical (White Bear Lake, MN, USA) Acclaim® fully implanted cochlear implant is a new device currently undergoing testing that has been designed to alleviate many of the current constraints by housing all components within the patient, thus allowing for near-constant use in many environments that are not conducive to a traditional cochlear implant. Methods: As part of an Early Feasibility Study, three adult implant candidates were implanted with the Acclaim® cochlear implant. Surgical video and photography were taken, and initial observations were recorded. Implantation with the Acclaim® device is largely similar to a traditional cochlear implant, with modifications to allow room for the implanted sensor as well as the implantation of a battery in the subcutaneous tissues of the chest. Results: This study demonstrates a step-by-step overview of implanting the Acclaim® and discusses initial insight and experiences with the first three implantations with this new device. Conclusions: All three surgeries proceeded without complication, and at activation, all three patients were hearing through their devices. Surgery is more technically challenging compared to a standard cochlear implant, but the skills needed can all be mastered by a dedicated otologic surgeon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures.Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit.Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively).Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]