Gantz, Bruce J.

Objective To assess integration of a single-use robotic-assisted cochlear implant (RA-CI) electrode array insertion system into surgical workflows, identify potential challenges, and inform best practices. Study Design Survey. Setting Survey data from 16 surgeons across 10 US hospitals. Patients CI candidates 12 years and older with radiographically normal cochleae. Intervention CI surgery with single-use RA-CI insertion system during electrode array insertion. Main Outcome Measures Number of RA-CI to achieve proficiency, estimated additional time for RA-CI, and best practices to successfully incorporate the RA insertion system into CI surgery. Results A total of 121 RA-CI cases were performed. All surgeons completed the survey. Most surgeons (62.5%) reported they would feel comfortable using the device within five cases. Eight (50%) reported use of the RA system added 5 to 10 minutes to the case, and seven (44%) reported an added 10–15 minutes. Providing adequate incision size to secure the unit base superior to the temporal line and maximizing exposure of the facial recess were the most recommended best practices. Additional recommendations included pulling the receiver/stimulator forward within the pocket to facilitate a full electrode array insertion and considering drive head placement and mastoidectomy size to maximize overall visibility during electrode array insertion. Conclusions Proficiency with an RA electrode array insertion system during CI surgery can be achieved with minor adjustments to the surgical approach, within relatively few use cases (generally <5) and with minimal time addition (between 5 and 15 min). Training to specific best practices is important before initial clinical use.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long‐term benefit for cochlear implantation.Study DesignProspective multi‐center single‐subject design.MethodsA total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant‐nucleus‐consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre‐ and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences in +5 dB signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index.ResultsPerformance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12‐month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation.ConclusionResults of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long‐term postoperative speech recognition performance.Level of Evidence2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2368–2374, 2017

OBJECTIVETo evaluate hearing outcomes and effects of stimulation rate on performance with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (Cochlear Americas, Denver, CO).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGRandomized, controlled, prospective, single‐blind clinical study using single‐subject repeated measures (A‐B‐A‐B) design at 14 academic centers in the United States and Canada and comparison with outcomes of a prior device by the same manufacturer.PATIENTSSeventy‐one severely/profoundly hearing impaired adults.RESULTSSeventy‐one adult recipients were randomly programmed in two different sets of rate: ACE or higher rate ACE RE. Mean scores for Consonant Nucleus Consonant words is 57%, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in quiet 78%, and HINT sentences in noise 64%. Sixty‐seven percent of subjects preferred slower rates of stimulation, and performance did not improve with higher rates of stimulation using this device.CONCLUSIONSSubjects performed well, and there was no advantage to higher stimulation rates with this device.SIGNIFICANCEHigher stimulation rates do not necessarily result in improved performance.