Bennett, Marc

Objective To assess Advanced Bionics (AB) HiRes Ultra and Ultra 3D initial version (V1) cochlear implant electrode failures over time at four large cochlear implant programs. Study Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Four tertiary referral centers. Patients Patients receiving AB HiRes Ultra and Ultra 3D initial version (V1) devices as of December 31, 2022. Main Outcome Measures Failure rate, revision surgery, speech recognition scores. Results Over a span of 7 years, 205 (42.6%) of 483 implanted V1 devices have failed. Device failure rate varied across institutions from 32 to 67%. Of the 205 detected failures, 163 (79%) have undergone revision surgery, with 94% of revisions being performed with Advanced Bionics devices. Average time from implantation to diagnosis of device failure was 2.7 ± 1.2 years. Most patients (89.8%) with available testing were matched or exceeded their best prefailure speech performance after implant revision. After revision, patients had an average CNC score improvement of 24.7 percentage points over their most recent pre-revision scores and demonstrated average datalogging of 12.7 ± 4.1 h/d at most recent evaluation. Conclusions Comparison of patients across multiple high-volume implant centers confirms the presence of ongoing device failures. There is variability across institutions in the rate of revision surgery once a patient is diagnosed with a V1 device failure, as well as in the rate of device failure detection. Inter-institutional variability in failure rates may be explained by the variation in the routine use of electrical field imaging. Reimplantation with a new device typically results in a return to prefailure peak performance. Professional Practice Gap & Educational Need To our knowledge, a comparison of AB HiRes (V1) device failures across multiple institutions has not been conducted. Learning Objective To identify device failure rate across multiple institutions with different testing protocols. Desired Result Providers will have an improved understanding of the trajectory of device failures for HiRes (V1) devices over time. Level of Evidence Level IV—Historical cohort or case-controlled studies. Indicate IRB or IACUC IRB #230017; IRB #22-000183; IRB #STU-032018-085; IRB #H-49479.

Objectives: Dizziness, vertigo, and unsteadiness are common complaints of patients who present to primary care providers. These patients often are referred to otology for assessment and management. Unfortunately, there are a small number of specialists to manage these patients. However, there are several dizziness disorders that can be successfully managed by primary care providers if the disorder is properly identified. To assist in the identification of several of the most common dizziness disorders, we developed the dizziness symptom profile (DSP). The DSP is a self-report questionnaire designed to generate one or more differential diagnoses that can be combined with the patient’s case history and physical examination. Design: This report describes three investigations. Investigations 1 and 2 (i.e., exploratory and confirmatory investigations, N = 514) describe the development of the DSP. Investigation 3 (N = 195) is a validation study that describes the level of agreement between the DSP completed by the patient, and, the differential diagnosis of the otologist. Results: The final version of the DSP consists of 31 items. Preliminary findings suggest that the DSP is in agreement with the differential diagnoses of ear specialists for Meniere’s disease (100% agreement), vestibular migraine (95% agreement), and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (82% agreement). Conclusions: Early results suggest that DSP may be useful in the creation of differential diagnoses for dizzy patients that can be evaluated and managed locally. This has the potential to reduce the burden on primary care providers and reduce delays in the diagnosis of common dizziness and vertigo disorders.

ObjectivesTo analyze factors that influence hearing preservation over time in cochlear implant recipients with conventional‐length electrode arrays located entirely within the scala tympani.Study DesignCase series with planned chart review.SettingSingle tertiary academic referral center.Subjects and MethodsA retrospective review was performed to analyze a subgroup of cochlear implant recipients with residual acoustic hearing. Patients were included in the study only if their electrode arrays remained fully in the scala tympani after insertion and serviceable acoustic hearing (≤80 dB at 250 Hz) was preserved. Electrode array location was verified through a validated radiographic assessment tool. Patients with <6 months of audiologic follow‐up were excluded. The main outcome measure was change in acoustic hearing thresholds from implant activation to the last available follow‐up.ResultsA total of 16 cases met inclusion criteria (median age, 70.6 years; range, 29.4‐82.2; 50% female). The average follow‐up was 18.0 months (median, 16.1; range, 6.2‐36.4). Patients with a lateral wall electrode array were more likely to have stable acoustic thresholds over time (P <. 05). Positive correlations were seen between continued hearing loss following activation and larger initial postoperative acoustic threshold shifts, though statistical significance was not achieved. Age, sex, and noise exposure had no significant influence on continued hearing preservation over time.ConclusionsTo control for hearing loss associated with interscalar excursion during cochlear implantation, the present study evaluated patients only with conventional electrode arrays located entirely within the scala tympani. In this group, the style of electrode array may influence residual hearing preservation over time.