Cochlear Implants: Challenges and Opportunities in Hearing Rehabilitation

Editors


E-Mail Website
Collection Editor
Clinic of Audiology & ENT, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
Interests: hearing aids; cochlear implants; hearing loss; tinnitus; vertigo
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

E-Mail Website
Collection Editor
Department of ENT Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
Interests: hearing implants; hearing loss; tinnitus; dizziness; otology; skull base

Topical Collection Information

Dear Colleagues,

Cochlear implants represent nowadays a safe and reliable technique for the successful rehabilitation of profound hearing loss either in newborns with congenital deafness, or in children and adults with progressive hearing loss too severe to be treated with conventional hearing aids. Therefore, children can achieve a normal speech and language development in implantation if performed timely and rehabilitaion is properly designed, allowing them to be integrated in the regular school sistems.

Features of Cochlear Implants are costantly improving. On a side, this is due to Cochlear Implants technological implementaions, such as wireless streaming of phone calls or music directly to the implant, or possible interactions with controlateral hearing aid. On the other side, also indications for implantation are changing, including for example patients with single-sided deafness.

This Topical Collection, we welcome papers focusing on the latest technological  developments of Cochlear Implants, on indications (single sided deafness or electroacoustic stimulation), on newly surgical procedures, as well as on all the related aspects related to these devices.

Dr. Andrea Ciorba
Dr. Daniele Borsetto
Collection Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the collection website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Audiology Research is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

 

Keywords

  • audiology
  • cochlear implants
  • hearing loss
  • tinnitus
  • rehabilitation
  • ear surgery

Published Papers (4 papers)

2024

Jump to: 2023

12 pages, 1353 KiB  
Article
Intraoperative Measurement of Insertion Speed in Cochlear Implant Surgery: A Preliminary Experience with Cochlear SmartNav
by Stefano Concheri, Davide Brotto, Marzia Ariano, Antonio Daloiso, Valerio Maria Di Pasquale Fiasca, Flavia Sorrentino, Beatrice Coppadoro, Patrizia Trevisi, Elisabetta Zanoletti and Sebastiano Franchella
Audiol. Res. 2024, 14(2), 227-238; https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres14020021 - 22 Feb 2024
Viewed by 825
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives were to present the real-time estimated values of cochlear implant (CI) electrode insertion speed (IS) during intraoperative sessions using the Cochlear Nucleus SmartNav System to assess whether this measure affected CI outcomes and to determine whether real-time feedback assists expert [...] Read more.
Objectives: The objectives were to present the real-time estimated values of cochlear implant (CI) electrode insertion speed (IS) during intraoperative sessions using the Cochlear Nucleus SmartNav System to assess whether this measure affected CI outcomes and to determine whether real-time feedback assists expert surgeons in achieving slow insertion. Methods: The IS was measured in 52 consecutive patients (65 implanted ears) using the CI632 electrode. The IS values were analyzed in relation to procedure repetition over time, NRT ratio, and CI audiological outcomes. Results: The average IS was 0.64 mm/s (SD = 0.24); minimum and maximum values were 0.23 and 1.24 mm/s, respectively. The IS significantly decreased with each array insertion by the operator (p = 0.006), and the mean decreased by 24% between the first and last third of procedures; however, this reduction fell within the error range of SmartNav for IS (+/−0.48 mm/s). No correlation was found between IS and the NRT ratio (p = 0.51), pure-tone audiometry (PTA) at CI activation (p = 0.506), and PTA (p = 0.94) or word recognition score (p = 0.231) at last evaluation. Conclusions: The estimated IS reported by SmartNav did not result in a clinically significant reduction in insertion speed or an improvement in CI hearing outcomes. Real-time feedback of IS could potentially be used for training, but its effectiveness requires confirmation through additional studies and more accurate tools. Implementation of IS assessment in clinical practice will enable comparisons between measurement techniques and between manual and robot-assisted insertions. This will help define the optimal IS range to achieve better cochlear implant (CI) outcomes. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 975 KiB  
Review
Cochlear Implantation in Children Affected by Single-Sided Deafness: A Comprehensive Review
by Giuseppe Santopietro, Virginia Fancello, Giuseppe Fancello, Chiara Bianchini, Stefano Pelucchi and Andrea Ciorba
Audiol. Res. 2024, 14(1), 77-85; https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres14010007 - 12 Jan 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 893
Abstract
Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience delays in language and speech development. Reduced speech discrimination and poor sound localization abilities in young SSD patients may result in greater cognitive efforts required to focus and process auditory information, as well as increased listening-related [...] Read more.
Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience delays in language and speech development. Reduced speech discrimination and poor sound localization abilities in young SSD patients may result in greater cognitive efforts required to focus and process auditory information, as well as increased listening-related fatigue. Consequently, these children can have a higher risk of academic failure and are often in need of extra help at school. Recently, cochlear implants (CIs) have been introduced as a rehabilitative option for these children, but their effectiveness is still a topic of debate. A literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, searching the Medline database from inception to October 2023. The research identified nine papers that met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted from the selected studies included 311 children affected by SSD and cochlear implants. The reported audiological outcomes were further analyzed. Overall, a high level of satisfaction was described by parents of children with SSD and CI, and those who received a CI under the age of 3 presented better results. However, a proportion of patients did not use the device daily. Our review highlights the possible, and still controversial, role of CI for the hearing rehabilitation of children with unilateral deafness, underlining the need for further research in this field. To date, careful and comprehensive counseling with the child and the family is necessary before considering this option. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

2023

Jump to: 2024

11 pages, 901 KiB  
Review
Otological Planning Software—OTOPLAN: A Narrative Literature Review
by Annalisa Gatto, Margherita Tofanelli, Ludovica Costariol, Serena Rizzo, Daniele Borsetto, Nicoletta Gardenal, Francesco Uderzo, Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo and Giancarlo Tirelli
Audiol. Res. 2023, 13(5), 791-801; https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres13050070 - 18 Oct 2023
Viewed by 991
Abstract
The cochlear implant (CI) is a widely accepted option in patients with severe to profound hearing loss receiving limited benefit from traditional hearing aids. CI surgery uses a default setting for frequency allocation aiming to reproduce tonotopicity, thus mimicking the normal cochlea. One [...] Read more.
The cochlear implant (CI) is a widely accepted option in patients with severe to profound hearing loss receiving limited benefit from traditional hearing aids. CI surgery uses a default setting for frequency allocation aiming to reproduce tonotopicity, thus mimicking the normal cochlea. One emerging instrument that may substantially help the surgeon before, during, and after the surgery is a surgical planning software product developed in collaboration by CASCINATION AG (Bern, Switzerland) and MED-EL (Innsbruck Austria). The aim of this narrative review is to present an overview of the main features of this otological planning software, called OTOPLAN®. The literature was searched on the PubMed and Web of Science databases. The search terms used were “OTOPLAN”, “cochlear planning software” “three-dimensional imaging”, “3D segmentation”, and “cochlear implant” combined into different queries. This strategy yielded 52 publications, and a total of 31 studies were included. The review of the literature revealed that OTOPLAN is a useful tool for otologists and audiologists as it improves preoperative surgical planning both in adults and in children, guides the intraoperative procedure and allows postoperative evaluation of the CI. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1073 KiB  
Review
How Can We Compare Cochlear Implant Systems across Manufacturers? A Scoping Review of Recent Literature
by Elinor Tzvi-Minker and Andreas Keck
Audiol. Res. 2023, 13(5), 753-766; https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres13050067 - 17 Oct 2023
Viewed by 2086
Abstract
Electric stimulation via a cochlear implant (CI) enables people with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss to regain speech understanding and music appreciation and, thus, allow them to actively engage in social life. Three main manufacturers (CochlearTM, MED-ELTM, and Advanced Bionics [...] Read more.
Electric stimulation via a cochlear implant (CI) enables people with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss to regain speech understanding and music appreciation and, thus, allow them to actively engage in social life. Three main manufacturers (CochlearTM, MED-ELTM, and Advanced BionicsTM “AB”) have been offering CI systems, thus challenging CI recipients and otolaryngologists with a difficult decision as currently no comprehensive overview or meta-analysis on performance outcomes following CI implantation is available. The main goals of this scoping review were to (1) map the literature on speech and music performance outcomes and to (2) find whether studies have performed outcome comparisons between devices of different manufacturers. To this end, a literature search was conducted to find studies that address speech and music outcomes in CI recipients. From a total of 1592 papers, 188 paper abstracts were analyzed and 147 articles were found suitable for an examination of full text. From these, 42 studies were included for synthesis. A total of 16 studies used the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition test in quiet at 60 db SPL. We found that aside from technical comparisons, very few publications compared speech outcomes across manufacturers of CI systems. However, evidence suggests that these data are available in large CI centers in Germany and the US. Future studies should therefore leverage large data cohorts to perform such comparisons, which could provide critical evaluation criteria and assist both CI recipients and otolaryngologists to make informed performance-based decisions. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop