Early fitting in cochlear implant surgery: preliminary results.

Activation Cochlear implant Early fitting Electrophysiology Impedance Most comfortable loudness

Journal

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 03 04 2023
accepted: 14 06 2023
medline: 7 7 2023
pubmed: 7 7 2023
entrez: 7 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Cochlear implants are usually activated 3-5 weeks after surgery; to date, no universal protocol exists regarding switch on and fitting of these devices. The aim of the study was to assess safety and functional results of activation and fitting of cochlear implant within 24 h following surgery. In this retrospective case-control study, 15 adult patients who underwent cochlear implant surgery, for a total of 20 cochlear implant procedures were analyzed. In particular, clinical safety and feasibility were investigated by examinating patients at activation and at each follow-up. Values of electrodes' impedance and most comfortable loudness (MCL) were analyzed from the time of surgery to 12 months after activation. Free-field pure tone average (PTA) was also recorded. No major or minor complications were reported and all patients could perform the early fitting. Activation modality influenced impedance values only in the short term but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Mean MCL values in the early fitting group were lower than MCL of the late fitting in all follow-up sessions, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The mean PTA was lower in the early fitting group but the difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Early fitting of cochlear implants is safe, allows for an early rehabilitation and can have possible beneficial effects on stimulation levels and dynamic range.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37417997
doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08076-9
pii: 10.1007/s00405-023-08076-9
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

O’Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP (2002) Minimal access surgery for pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 23(6):891–894. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200211000-00014
doi: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00014 pubmed: 12438852
Stratigouleas ED, Perry BP, King SM, Syms CA (2006) Complication rate of minimally invasive cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 135(3):383–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.03.023
doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.03.023
Prager JD, Neidich MJ, Perkins JN, Meinzen-Derr J, Greinwald JH (2012) Minimal access and standard cochlear implantation: a comparative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76(8):1102–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.04.008 pubmed: 22595461
Holcomb MA, Dornhoffer JR, McRackan TR (2021) The effects of paired versus sequential stimulation on speech recognition outcomes of adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurootol 26(3):188–194. https://doi.org/10.1159/000511449 . (Epub 2021 Jan 18)
doi: 10.1159/000511449 pubmed: 33461201
Hagr A, Garadat SN, Al-Momani M, Alsabellha RM, Almuhawas FA (2015) Feasibility of one-day activation in cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 54(5):323–328. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.996824
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.996824 pubmed: 25634774
Sun C, Chang C, Hsu C, Wu H (2019) Feasibility of early activation after cochlear implantation. Clin Otolaryngol 44(6):1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13427
doi: 10.1111/coa.13427 pubmed: 31487432
Alhabib SF, Abdelsamad Y, Yousef M, Alzhrani F, Hagr A (2021) Effect of early activation of cochlear implant on electrode impedance in pediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 140:110543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110543
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110543 pubmed: 33302020
Wei JJF, Tung TH, Li LPH (2021) Evolution of impedance values in cochlear implant patients after early switch-on. PLoS One 16(2):e0246545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246545
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246545 pubmed: 33606685 pmcid: 7894879
Sunwoo W, Jeon HW, Choi BY (2021) Effect of initial switch-on within 24 hours of cochlear implantation using slim modiolar electrodes. Sci Rep 11(1):22809. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01862-7
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01862-7 pubmed: 34815432 pmcid: 8611070
Batuk MO, Yarali M, Cinar BC et al (2019) Is early cochlear implant device activation safe for all on-the-ear and off-the-ear sound processors? Audiol Neurotol 24(6):279–284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503378
doi: 10.1159/000503378
Günther S, Baumann U, Stöver T (2018) Early fitting in cochlear implantation: benefits and limits. Otol Neurotol 39(4):e250–e256. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001745
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001745 pubmed: 29533333
Alsabellha RM, Hagr A, Al-Momani MO, Garadat SN (2014) Cochlear implant device activation and programming: 5 days postimplantation. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society. Am Neurotol Soc [and] Euro Acad Otol Neurotol 35(4):e130–e134. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000266
Bruschke S, Baumann U, Stöver T (2021) Long-term follow-up of early cochlear implant device activation. Audiol Neurotol 26(5):327–337. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512760
doi: 10.1159/000512760
Tykocinski M, Cohen LT, Cowan RS (2005) Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 26(5):948–956. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000185056.99888.f3
doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185056.99888.f3 pubmed: 16151342
Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clar GM (1998) Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 118(3):313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489850183386
doi: 10.1080/00016489850183386 pubmed: 9655204
Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ et al (2001) A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 22(6):471–486. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200112000-00004
doi: 10.1097/00003446-200112000-00004 pubmed: 11770670
Duan YY, Clark GM, Cowan RSC (2004) A study of intra-cochlear electrodes and tissue interface by electrochemical impedance methods in vivo. Biomaterials 25(17):3813–3828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.107
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.107 pubmed: 15020157
Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Kronenberg J, Hildesheimer M (2003) Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 67(8):873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-5876(03)00131-9
doi: 10.1016/S0165-5876(03)00131-9 pubmed: 12880667
Chen JKC, Chuang AYC, Sprinzl GM, Tung TH, Li LPH (2013) Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation. PLoS One 8(8):e71929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071929
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071929 pubmed: 23991008 pmcid: 3753283
Jeon EK, Brown CJ, Etler CP, O’Brien S, Chiou LK, Abbas PJ (2010) Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the advanced bionics cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 21(01):016–027. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.1.3
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.3
Foggia MJ, Quevedo RV, Hansen MR (2019) Intracochlear fibrosis and the foreign body response to cochlear implant biomaterials. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 4(6):678–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.329
doi: 10.1002/lio2.329 pubmed: 31890888 pmcid: 6929576
Nunn TB, Jiang D, Green T, Boyle PJ, Vickers DA (2019) A systematic review of the impact of adjusting input dynamic range (IDR), electrical threshold (T) level and rate of stimulation on speech perception ability in cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 58(6):317–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2018.1564844
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1564844 pubmed: 30939068

Auteurs

Arianna Soncini (A)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43121, Parma, Italy. arianna.soncini@unipr.it.

Sebastiano Franzini (S)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43121, Parma, Italy.

Francesca Di Marco (F)

Advanced Bionics Italia, Via Privata Raimondo Montecuccoli, 30, 20147, Milan, MI, Italy.

Pasquale Riccardi (P)

Advanced Bionics Italia, Via Privata Raimondo Montecuccoli, 30, 20147, Milan, MI, Italy.

Andrea Bacciu (A)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43121, Parma, Italy.

Enrico Pasanisi (E)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43121, Parma, Italy.

Filippo Di Lella (F)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43121, Parma, Italy.

Classifications MeSH