Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cochlear implantation programming characteristics and outcomes of cochlear nerve deficiency

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Due to the specificity of cochlear implantation (CI) programming parameters and outcomes in cochlear nerve deficiency (CND) patients, this study aimed to investigate the correlation between programming parameters and outcomes and further compare the difference between normal and CND groups.

Methods

Ninety (95 ears) CND patients (normal cochlea, 39; malformed cochlea, 56) and seventy-nine (81 ears) normal cochlea patients who underwent CI surgery with either Med-El or Cochlear devices were included. The programming parameters and outcomes evaluated by the questionnaires were collected and compared among the normal CND, malformed CND, and normal groups in the two device groups, and their correlation was analyzed.

Results

In the CND group, a reduced stimulation rate, higher pulse width, and triphasic pulse were needed in some cases. The stimulus levels of the CND group were significantly higher than that of the normal group (p < 0.05), but the outcomes of the CND group were significantly worse than that of the normal group (p < 0.05), and the stimulus level was significantly correlated with the outcomes (p < 0.05). However, there was no difference between normal and malformed CND groups. The non-auditory response was observed in the CND group, especially the ones with malformations.

Conclusion

The CI programming parameters of some CND patients need to be adjusted, and a slower stimulation rate and higher pulse width are required sometimes. CND patients need a higher stimulus level than normal patients but their outcomes are poorer. Non-auditory response should be noticed in CND patients during programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials.

References

  1. Shelton C, Luxford WM, Tonokawa LL, Lo WWM, House WF (1989) The narrow internal auditory canal in children: a contraindication to Cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 100:227–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu CM, Lee LA, Chen CK, Chan KC, Tsou YT, Ng SH (2015) Impact of Cochlear nerve deficiency determined using 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging on hearing outcome in children with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 36:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Valero J, Blaser S, Papsin BC, James AL, Gordon KA (2012) Electrophysiologic and behavioral outcomes of Cochlear implantation in children with auditory nerve hypoplasia. Ear Hear 33:3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei X, Li Y, Chen B, Gong Y, Shi Y (2017) Predicting auditory outcomes from radiological imaging in cochlear implant patients with Cochlear nerve deficiency. Otol Neurotol 38:685–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yamazaki H, Leigh J, Briggs R, Naito Y (2015) Usefulness of MRI and EABR testing for predicting CI outcomes immediately after cochlear implantation in cases with Cochlear nerve deficiency. Otol Neurotol 36:977–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elina K, John LG, Janice L, Neelmini E, Laurel MF (2018) Abnormal cochleovestibular anatomy and hearing outcomes pediatric patients with a questionable cochleovestibular nerve status may benefit from Cochlear implantation and/or hearing aids. Audiol Neurotol 128:48–57

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wei X, Li Y, Fu QJ, Gong Y, Liu T (2018) Slotted Labyrinthotomy approach with customized electrode for patients with common cavity deformity. Laryngoscope 128:468–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skidmore J, Xu L, Chao X, Riggs WJ, He S, (2020). Prediction of the functional status of the cochlear nerve in individual cochlear implant users using machine learning and electrophysiological measures. Ear Hear (Publish Ahead of Print)

  9. He S, Grose J, Hang AX, Buchman CA (2012) Cochlear implant-evoked cortical activation in children with Cochlear nerve deficiency. Otol Neurotol 33:1188–1196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Han JJ, Suh MW, Park MK, Koo JW, Lee JH, Oh SH, (2019). A predictive model for cochlear implant outcome in children with cochlear nerve deficiency. Sci Rep 9 (1):1154

  11. Sennaroğlu L, Bajin MD (2017) Classification and current management of inner ear malformations. Balkan Med J 34:397–411

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Qga B, Jing L, Ying K, Txa B, Rda B, Bqa B, Swa B, Xca B (2020) The development of auditory performance and speech perception in CI children after long-period follow up—ScienceDirect. Am J Otolaryngol 41:102466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Farhood Z, Nguyen SA, Miller SC, Holcomb MA, Rizk AHG (2017) Cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations: systematic review of speech perception outcomes and intraoperative findings. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156:855517962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arumugam SV, Nair G, Paramasivan VK, Goyal S, Murali S, Kameswaran M (2020) A study of outcome of pediatric cochlear implantation in patients with cochleovestibular nerve deficiency. J Int Adv Otol 16:147–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro W, Waltzman S (1995) Changes in electrical thresholds over time in young children implanted with the nucleus cochlear prosthesis. Ann Ootol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:177–178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Riss D, Hamzavi JS, Blineder M, Flak S, Baumgartner WD, Kaider A, Arnoldner C (2016) Effects of stimulation rate with the FS4 and HDCIS coding strategies in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 37:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Riss D, Hamzavi JS, Blineder M, Honeder C, Arnoldner C (2014) FS4, FS4-P, and FSP: A 4-month crossover study of three fine structure sound-coding strategies. Ear Hear 35:e272–e281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Qga B, Jing L, Ying K, Txa B, Rda B, Bqa B, Swa B, Xca B (2002) The development of auditory performance and speech perception in CI children after long-period follow up—ScienceDirect. Am J Otolaryngol 41(4):102466

  19. Graham J (1997) Congenital malformations of the ear and cochlear implantation in children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 52:121–123

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kiefer J, Ilberg CV, Rupprecht V, Hubneregner J, Knecht R (2000) Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations. Ann Otolrhinol Laryngol 109:1009–1020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M (2000) The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 108:790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. He S, Shahsavarani BS, Mcfayden TC, Wang H, Gill KE, Xu L, Chao X, Luo J, Wang R, He N (2018) Responsiveness of the electrically stimulated cochlear nerve in children with Cochlear nerve deficiency. Ear Hear 1

  23. He S, Chao X, Wang R, Luo J, Xu L, Teagle HFB, Park LR, Brown KD, Shannon M, Warner C (2020) Recommendations for measuring the electrically evoked compound action potential in children with cochlear nerve deficiency. Ear Hear 41:465–475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pelosi S, Rivas A, Haynes DS, Bennett ML, Labadie RF, Hedley-Williams A, Wanna GB (2012) Stimulation rate reduction and auditory development in poorly performing cochlear implant users with auditory neuropathy. Otol Neurotol 33:1502–1506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shepherd RK, Roberts LA, Paolini AG (2015) Long-term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve. Eur J Neurosci 20:3131–3140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Braun K, Walker K, Sürth W, Lwenheim H, Tropitzsch A (2019) Triphasic pulses in cochlear implant patients with facial nerve stimulation. Otol Neurotol 40:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shepherd RK, Javel E (1999) Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear Res 130:171–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bonnet RM, Frijns J, Peeters S, Briaire JJ (2004) Speech recognition with a cochlear implant using triphasic charge-balanced pulses. Acta Otolaryngol 124:371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bahmer A, Baumann U (2016) The underlying mechanism of preventing facial nerve stimulation by triphasic pulse stimulation in Cochlear implant users assessed with objective measure. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 37:1231–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Papsin B (2005) Cochlear Implantation in children with anomalous chochleovestibular anatomy. Laryngoscope 115:1–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. He S, Xu L, Skidmore J, Chao X, Warner C (2020) Effect of increasing pulse phase duration on neural responsiveness of the electrically stimulated cochlear nerve. Ear Hear (Publish Ahead of Print, 1)

  32. Buchman CA, Teagle HFB, Roush PA, Park LR, Hatch D, Woodard J, Zdanski C, Adunka OF (2011) Cochlear implantation in children with labyrinthine anomalies and cochlear nerve deficiency: implications for auditory Brainstem implantation. Laryngoscope 121:1979–1988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Teagle H, Roush PA, Woodard JS, Hatch DR, Zdanski CJ, Buss E, Buchman CA (2010) Cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Ear Hear 31:325–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, Shapiro W, Knight M, Stecker M, Richter B, Waltzman S, Tykocinski M, Roland T (2002) Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 23:28S-40S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Daneshi A, Farhadi M, Ajalloueyan M, Rajati M, Mirsalehi M (2020) Cochlear implantation in children with inner ear malformation: a multicenter study on auditory performance and speech production outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 132:109901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ying S, Yongxin L, Yue G, Biao CJ (2019) Cochlear implants for patients with inner ear malformation: experience in a cohort of 877 surgeries. Clin Otolaryngol Off J Ent UK Off J Neth Soc Otorhinolaryngol Cervico Fac Surg

  37. Park JH, Kim AR, Han JH, Kim SD, Choi BY (2017) Outcome of Cochlear implantation in prelingually deafened children according to molecular genetic etiology. Ear Hear 38:e316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Archbold S, Lutman ME, Marshall DH (1995) Categories of auditory performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:312–314

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Crosson J (1992) Meaningful use of speech scale: application to orally educated hearing-impaired children. Independent studies & capstones

  40. Mori A, Kashio A, Akamatsu Y, Ogata E, Yamasoba T (2020) Long-term outcomes of Cochlear implantation in children with Cochlear nerve deficiency. Arch Clin Med Case Rep. https://doi.org/10.26502/acmcr.96550288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wermeskerken GKAV, Olphen AFV, Smoorenburg GF (2006) Intra- and postoperative electrode impedance of the straight and contour arrays of the nucleus 24 Cochlear implant: relation to T and C levels. Int J Audiol 45:537–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen N (1988) Medical or surgical complications related to the nucleus multichannel Cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 97:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Niparko JK, Oviatt DL, Coker NJ, Sutton L, Cohen NL (1991) Facial nerve stimulation with Cochlear implantation. VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:826–830

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ahmad RL, Lokman S (2005) Cochlear implantation in congenital Cochlear abnormalities. Med J Malays 60:379

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Wiley Editing Services for English language editing of this manuscript.

Funding

Yongxin Li received grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 81870716) and Natural Science Foundation of Beijing (Grant no. 7212015) and Xingmei Wei received grant from Beijing Tongren Hospital (Grant no.2020-YJJ-ZZL-031).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xingmei Wei and Simeng Lu are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education, 1, Dongjiaominxiang, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People’s Republic of China

    Xingmei Wei, Simeng Lu, Biao Chen, Jingyuan Chen, Lifang Zhang, Yongxin Li & Ying Kong

Authors
  1. Xingmei Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simeng Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Biao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jingyuan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lifang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yongxin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ying Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yongxin Li or Ying Kong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare no competing interests.

Research involving human participants

Yes, and this study was approved by the research ethics board of our center.

Informed consent

We have got the permission of all the participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wei, X., Lu, S., Chen, B. et al. Cochlear implantation programming characteristics and outcomes of cochlear nerve deficiency. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280, 4409–4418 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-07949-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-07949-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation