Abstract
Purpose of Review
This review examines recent literature on cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS), both in sporadic and Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2)-associated schwannomatosis. Indications, post-operative outcomes, and the impact of tumor management strategy on CI performance are reviewed. The key objective is to identify research gaps that warrant further investigation.
Recent Findings
Improvement in speech perception, sound localization, and quality-of-life metrics are observed after CI in VS patients. Key considerations in candidate selection include tumor size, contralateral hearing status, and intra-operative cochlear nerve function. CI outcomes in sporadic VS are influenced by tumor management modality, with less invasive approaches demonstrating potentially more favorable results.
Summary
The review underscores the potential of CI as a hearing rehabilitation option for VS patients no longer benefiting from amplification. Future research should explore neural integrity biomarkers, timing of implantation, and quality-of-life measures specific to the VS population.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Over 50 million people worldwide and 1.2 million Americans are living with severe or profound hearing loss [1]. Etiologies are broad and include presbycusis, noise, ototoxicity and tumors such as vestibular schwannomas (VS). A study of VS symptoms identified that 85.8% of patients had hearing loss, and 40.1% had tinnitus among other complaints of ataxia, facial numbness, and paralysis [2]. The vast majority of VS (95%) are sporadic and unilateral; the remaining 5% of VS are typically bilateral as a part of a Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2) associated schwannomatosis phenotype [3]. The etiology of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in VS is multi-factorial and includes auditory nerve damage from tumor growth , mechanical compression from the tumor, and cochlear cellular damage from tumor secreted factors such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and extracellular vesicles [4].
Although more patients with VS are being observed than undergoing active treatment such as surgery or radiation, hearing loss remains an important factor in patients’ quality-of-life. Furthermore, the progression of SNHL in the non-tumor ear has been shown to be significantly greater than expected for age-related hearing loss in the general population [4]. The increased risk of hearing loss affecting both the ear ipsilateral to the tumor and the contralateral ear further highlights the importance of hearing rehabilitation. Despite this tremendous burden, hearing devices are not utilized to their full potential in the VS population. In a survey of patients with unilateral VS, less than one third of the respondents had ever used a hearing rehabilitation device, and 88% of patients had profound hearing loss in the affected ear [5]. In light of this, the aim of this review is to highlight the recent literature on cochlear implantation in the VS population, both in sporadic VS and in NF2-related schwannomatosis (NF2-SWN), and ultimately identify research areas where more work is warranted.
Hearing Rehabilitation in VS Patients with Single-Sided Deafness
Patients with unilateral sporadic VS typically experience asymmetric SNHL in the affected ear with decline in speech discrimination scores. Treatment of hearing loss in cases of single-sided deafness (SSD) includes traditional hearing aids if they have mild-to-moderately severe SNHL. However, conventional amplification may offer little to no benefit in patients with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss or those with poor (< 50%) word discrimination scores. In these cases, contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids may serve as better rehabilitative options. CROS systems involve capturing sound from the worsened ear with an external microphone and routing to the better, unaffected ear. Similarly, BiCROS hearing devices can be applied to patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the non-tumor, contralateral ear to provide additional amplification. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of patients with SSD had significant improvement in their quality-of-life using CROS.
Additionally, surgically implanted bone-anchored conduction systems can be considered for patients with VS-associated SSD. The bone conduction device is fixated and/or osseointegrated into the skull on the side of the affected ear and connected to an external bone oscillator either transcutaneously or percutaneously. Sound information is transformed by the oscillator and transmitted through the device to directly vibrate the bony labyrinth. Compared to CROS hearing aids, bone conduction devices are best suited for patients with good contralateral hearing. Similar to CROS, bone conduction devices are limited by their inability to provide binaural hearing, which is critical to provide speech perception in noise, localization, and tinnitus mitigation [6•, 7].
Historically, patients with hearing loss due to NF2-SWN that are no longer aidable can undergo placement of auditory brainstem implants (ABIs). An ABI bypasses the cochlear nerve and is placed near the dorsal cochlear nucleus to directly stimulate the cochlear nucleus to restore hearing. The performance of an ABI is quite variable, as most patients have some degree of sound awareness, but accomplishing open-speech after ABI is rare [8]. While it is a great option for patients where the cochlear nerve is absent or not intact, further research is needed to select candidates most appropriate for ABI.
There is growing evidence that CIs are able to mitigate the deficits that patients experience with SSD [9]. A retrospective study of 41 patients VS who underwent simultaneous VS resection and cochlear implantation revealed that auditory perception was achieved in 80.5% of patients with improved hearing outcomes in the users group compared to the non-users groups [10]. Further support of CI benefits was provided by a study of 13 VS patients which reported auditory sensation in all patients and speech perception in 12 of the 13 patients (92%) with a median follow-up time of 14 months [11]. Another study of 7 sporadic VS patients reported auditory perception in 100% of patients (n = 7). Speech perception testing in these 5 patients showed improvement in sentence testing-in-noise; however, there was no improvement in the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word assessment of speech perception [12]. Thus CI is an undeniably an effective modality for hearing rehabilitation in the VS patient population, but further research is needed to reconcile some of the discrepancies between studies.
Historical Perspectives on CI
Historically, CI was reserved for patients with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss; however, CI indication expansion has been an ongoing process over the past nearly 30 years [13]. Since the 2014 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid CI (Cochlear Limited, Sydney, Australia) and the 2016 approval for the MED-EL Electro-acoustic Stimulation (EAS) device (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), there has been a greater emphasis on audiometric testing results from the ear to be implanted rather than the best-aided condition. These approvals expanded CI indications to patients with low-frequency residual hearing in the normal range, and it based candidacy on aided word scores from each ear instead of the best-aided [14]. It became clear to surgeons that CI placement with residual hearing allowed for potentially improved CI outcomes. In 2019, the FDA approved CI for patients with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and SSD [15]. These expansions reflect surgeons’ off-label use of CI as reported in a survey of the American Neurotology Society where 78% of respondents indicated CI off-label use including for SSD (46%) and ipsilateral VS (35%) [16].
Patients with SSD experience a loss of binaural which leads to problems with sound localization and speech recognition in noisy environments and results in a significant level of handicap [17]. Auditory and speech related benefits of CI are widely reported in both unilateral and bilateral implantation, as well as in bimodal use where a hearing aid is used in the contralateral ear [17, 18]. Such benefits include improved sound localization, reduction of the head blocking sound effect (head shadow benefit), and enhanced speech perception when speech and noise are presented concurrently from the front of a patient (summation improvement). The effectiveness of CI in patients has been under intensive investigation over the past 10 years. A study of 60 patients with SSD due to a variety of pathologies such as tumors or Meniere’s disease reported multiple binaural benefits after implantation [19]. Specifically in the VS patient population, Thompson et al. provided compelling evidence for benefits of concurrent translabyrinthine tumor excision and CI insertion. Their systematic review showed that the majority of patients (85%) achieved audibility, and, of patients with open-set speech recognition, most (75%) were classified as either intermediate or high performers [20].
Current literature validates significant improvements in speech perception scores in quiet and noise, tinnitus control, sound localization, and quality-of-life after cochlear implantation, as evidenced by a systematic review on cochlear implantation in the SSD population involving 674 patients [9]. In a study involving 12 adult patients, CNC scores in quiet improved by an average of 54%. In noise, there was an average signal-to-noise (SNR) reduction of 2.0 dB when noise was presented to the CI ear and 4.6 dB when noise was presented to the better hearing ear [21]. Similar positive outcomes were reported from a prospective study of 10 SSD-CI patients at 6 months post-activation. CNC improvement in this cohort was high, averaging 84%. Additionally, there was improvement in the Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT) sentence recognition in quiet, with an improvement of 51% relative to the binaural baseline. Other reported benefits included enhanced localization accuracy (root mean square error [RMSE] reduction by 11.5 degrees), reduced tinnitus severity (visual analog scale scores significantly lower with the CI on than with the CI off), and improved quality-of-life (mean scores of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ) sub-tests were 5.7, 5.5, and 6.8, respectively) [22]. Nevertheless, disparities exist in results and testing modalities across these studies, underscoring the necessity for additional research to validate the findings of these studies. From a quality-of-life standpoint, CI in SSD patients allows for significant improvement in tinnitus [17, 23, 24]. Tolisano et al. found that SSD patients showed improvement in objective measures, such as speech-in-quiet (SIQ), speech-in-noise (SIN), sound localization and improvement in subjective measures of quality-of-life following CI. However, there was no relationship between the timelines in improvement of objective and subjective measures [25].
Despite evidence supporting the efficacy of cochlear implantation, CI utilization rates remain low. A recent analysis estimates that only 12.1% of individuals with severe-to-profound SNHL in the better hearing ear (traditional CI indication) ultimately undergo implantation. Furthermore, only 2.1% of individuals with SSD or AHL with severe-to-profound SNHL in the worse ear undergo implantation [26]. Not surprisingly, barriers to CI uptake include socieioeconomic status and patients’ concerns such as fear of surgical complications, concern over the loss of residual hearing, financial burden, social stigma, and gaps in knowledge [27,28,29]. However, providers, including general practitioners and audiologists, also expressed lack in knowledge about CI which may impact their referral rates [18, 27].
VS and Hearing Loss
Current estimates of prevalence of sporadic VS are approximately 1 in 2000 adults (up to 1 in 500 in the elderly population, age ≥ 70 years) with an incidence around 1–2 per 100,000 (up to 21 per 100,000 person-years in the elderly) [30, 31]. With the rise in incidence of VS over the past decades, the role of hearing loss management in this population has increasingly grown in importance. Most patients with VS present with progressive asymmetric SNHL. Multiple studies demonstrate a similar pattern of hearing loss in their observational cohorts, with rates of serviceable hearing at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years to be 94%, 77%, 66%, 56%, and 44% respectively [32,33,34]. Tumor volume was also associated with worse hearing as indicated by higher pure tone averages (PTA) and decreased word recognition scores [35]. Worse hearing at presentation was also independently associated with the risk of progressing to non-serviceable hearing, with every 10 dB increase in PTA doubling the risk and every 10% decrease in WRS increasing risk 1.5 fold [33].
In a systemic review including 2,100 unique sporadic VS patients, on average, half the patients had preserved good and/or serviceable hearing after five years of observation [36]. Elliot et al. demonstrated no significant differences in hearing survival in patients who underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus observation (35 months vs 48 months, p = 0.276) [37]. Similarly, for both observation and SRS, the risk of hearing loss increases with time [38]. In contrast, the risk of hearing loss is much higher following microsurgical resection, but postoperative hearing preservation is much more durable compared to the other two interventions [38]. Prognostic predictors for better postoperative hearing including better preoperative PTA and WRS, small tumor size (< 1cm), and the presence of a cerebrospinal fluid fundal cap in the internal auditory canal [38]. In contrast, in patients with NF2-SWN, tumors are more likely to grow during observation, can be less responsive to radiation, and result in more complications following surgery due to more adhesions and higher difficulty with tumor resection [39,40,41].
CI Outcomes in Sporadic VS
CI indication expansion to SSD and AHL population has made this treatment modality more common in sporadic VS patients. Emerging literature increasingly validates hearing improvements and tinnitus reduction following cochlear implantation during sporadic VS resection. Previously, numerous studies on CI outcomes focused on NF2-SWN; however, most VS patients present with sporadic unilateral tumors with hearing loss in the ipsilateral ear [42]. To better identify individuals who would benefit from simultaneous VS resection and CI, intraoperative assessment of cochlear nerve function should be performed [43,44,45,46,47]. Cochlear implantation can be done concurrent with or subsequent to tumor resection, but there is a potential risk of cochlear ossification if CI was not implanted simultaneously [48]. A systematic review found that sporadic VS tumors were smaller in size than NF2 tumors, had better pre-operative hearing, were most commonly resected through the translabyrinthine approach, and achieved superior CI performance level in 80% of patients [49]. A prospective study of 13 patients undergoing simultaneous translabyrinthine resection and cochlear implantation revealed improvement in speech perception at 12-month follow-up with 75% of patients having high (67%‐100%) CNC score, 16.7% intermediate (34%‐66%), and 8.3% low (0%-33%) CNC score with most gains achieved within 3 months [6•]. Conway et al. also reported improvement of Arizona Biomedical Sentence Test (AzBIO) + 5 dB SNR from 82% preoperatively to 94% postoperatively as well as improvement in tinnitus based on Tinnitus Handicap Index (THI) scores decreasing from 41 preoperatively to 23 at 3-month follow-up [50].
The management strategy for VS also appears to impact CI outcomes. Urban et al. compared CI outcomes in observation versus SRS with two patients in each group. The reported CNC scores post-implantation were 64% and 22% in the observation group, compared to 70% and 78% in the SRS group. Pre-implantation CNC scores were not reported; however, SRS therapy may offer more favoarble CI outcomes compared to tumors observation [51]. Further evidence of CI outcomes following observation was provided by Longino et al. This study identified 7 patients with non-growing sporadic tumors. CI outcomes without tumor resection or radiation resulted in CNC improvement from 6% pre-op to 55% 12 months post-op [52]. These studies shed light on less invasive treatment options of VS; however, surgical management remains a common management modality, especially for large tumors [53]. A prospective study of simultaneous CI and translabyrinthine VS resection of tumors ≤ 2 cm by Doerfer et al. followed patients for 12 months following implantation. These patients experienced improvement in speech perception in quiet (CNC improved from 39% preop to 69% post-op) and noise (AzBio + 10 SNR improved from 90% pre-op to 98.8% post-op), as well as reduction in tinnitus (THI from 32.5 to 14.0) [6•]. While both observation and surgical management studies report speech perception improvment, CNC score improved by 49% in Longino’s observation group and only 30% in Doerfer’s surgical group. These outcomes are further supported by a Dornhoffer et al. study that examined CI outcomes according to VS management modality in 49 patients, 21 of whom have sporadic VS. All patients managed with observation (n = 7) or radiosurgery (n = 8) achieved open-set speech. Whereas 4 of 6 patients who underwent microsurgery achieved open-set speech recognition [54]. These findings suggest that VS management strategy may significantly impact CI outcomes, and less invasive treatment such as observation or radiosurgery may be considered for patients interested in CI.
CI Outcomes in NF2-SWN
Surgical advancements to preserve the auditory nerve during NF2 resection allows for cochlear implantations in some NF2 patients with potentially favorable hearing outcomes. NF2 patients usually have multiple tumors that are more aggressive. Tumors are also likely to be larger and growing compared to non-NF2 VS. The larger tumor size, multifocality, and invasion of neurovasculature may contribute to the less favorable CI outcomes in this population compared to non-NF2 patients. In a cohort of 48 patients, 77% of CI recipients achieved open-set speech perception compared to only 12% in the ABI cohort. While tumor management modality varied in this cohort and 3 patients received both a CI and an ABI, hearing outcomes with CI greatly surpass ABI [54]. A retrospective study reported 100% open-set speech recognition (n = 5) with a CI at an average of 38 months follow-up [55]. Another long-term study reported that of 12 patients with bilateral VS, 75% could communicate with lip-reading and 50% could communicate by telephone at an average follow-up time of 20 months [56].
A retrospective study found that 4 out of 12 NF2-SWN patients achieved open-set speech discrimination without lip-reading. Ipsilateral tumors of these 4 patients were managed by Bevacizumab post-CI, SRS (n = 2) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy prior to CI. Another four patients achieved speech discrimination with the aid of lip-reading; ipsilateral tumors of these patients were managed by Bevacizumab post-CI (n = 2) or SRS prior to implant (n = 2). The remaining 4 patients who did not achieve speech discrimination were managed by surgical excision concurrent with implant, partial tumor resection and radiotherapy prior to implant, retrosigmoid debulking, or observation [57]. Based on these results, tumors managed with radiotherapy may be associated with improved CI performance.
Similar outcomes are reported by a more recent study by Deep et al. which followed 24 NF2 patients whose ipsilateral VS were managed with microsurgery (n = 12), SRS (n = 5), and observation (n = 7). Amongst 12 patients undergoing microsurgical resection, 7 of 7 patients with tumors less than 1.5 cm achieved open-set speech discrimination. By contrast, only 1 out of 5 (20%) whose tumor was larger than 1.5 cm achieved open-set speech. In patients who underwent SRS, 5 of 5 patients (100%) achieved open-set speech regardless of tumor size. Finally, 6 of 7 (87%) patients whose tumor was observed achieved open-set speech discrimination [58••]. Taken together, the successful performance of CI in NF2-SWN patients is dependent on factors including appropriate patient selection, treatment strategy, and tumor size [54, 58••, 59].
In the discussion of CI outcomes, it's crucial to acknowledge that the duration and timeline of performance improvement may vary between NF2 and non-NF2 patients with CI. A retrospective study of 17 patients, 9 with NF2, showed that compared to sporadic VS (n = 8), NF2 cases had worse early postoperative results at 3 months but continued to improve within 6–24 months with consistent CI use [60]. It is possible that worse CI outcomes are influenced by patients becoming non-users following disappointing results in the initial period. This underscores the importance of educating patients and setting realistic expectations.
Considerations for NF2 Patient Selection
To best select NF2-SWN patients who may benefit from CI, several factors should be considered. Pre-operatively, larger tumor size [49, 58••, 61] and good contralateral hearing [56, 60] might compromise results post-implantation. In the study by Deep et al., patients who achieved open-set speech following CI (n = 19) exhibited smaller tumors (mean size 1.2cm, SD 0.7) compared to those who only attained auditory perception (n = 5; mean size 2.5cm, SD 0.4), regardless of management modality [58••]. Seo et al. conducted a longitudinal study on the use of CI in NF2-SWN patients. Tumor size was the sole variable influencing CI outcomes: CI non-users had a significantly larger tumors compared to CI users (32 vs. 16 mm) [61]. The larger tumor size may be associated with worse cochlear nerve degeneration, multicentricity along the nerve and increased ototoxic secretions. Regarding contralateral hearing, Sorrentino et al. found that patients with impaired pre-operative contralateral hearing (AAO-HNS Hearing Classes C-D) showed improved CI outcomes at 24-months. Conversely, patients with non-impaired pre-operative contralateral hearing (Classes A/B) exhibited poorer audiometric outcomes (PTA 78.8 dB) [60]. These results indicating good contralateral hearing may be a negative prognostic factor, while unexpected, could be linked to the challenges patients face in integrating normal acoustic signals with electrical stimulation, potentially hindering daily CI use. However, it remains curcial to emphasize consistent CI use and implement a multidisciplinary approach to support effective patient adaption to hearing with an implant.
Intraoperatively, cochlear nerve monitoring is the most important factor in determining CI outcomes. Electrical promontory stimulation or electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (eABR) can be used to monitor cochlear nerve intraoperatively and predict cochlear implant performance [45, 47, 62,63,64]. Butler et al. performed a small retrospective study of 3 patients specifically addressing eABR functionality in predicting CI outcomes. Two patients had a reliable eABR signal intraoperatively. The signal in the third patient was lost due to technical difficulties intraoperatively. Only one of the patients (who had a reliable eABR signal) achieved open-set speech discrimination. The other patient with eABR signal became a non-user and did not achieve open-set speech signal [62]. This is a small sample size and more studies are needed to elucidate the benefit of eABR; however, it is a helpful tool to ensure cochlear nerve function before CI placement.
Future Implications
CI in the VS population has been met with strong enthusiasm given its potential for substantially altering the care of patients; however, the implications and nuances of this therapy warrant future study. Better assessment of cochlear neural integrity after resection is required. Intraoperatively, anatomic integrity is typically utilized as a surrogate marker for whether to proceed with implantation, but this is decidedly different from neural integrity. In the authors’ experience, there are instances of inadequate results or non-functional implants despite anatomic integrity. Postoperatively, cochlear promontory stimulation has shown predictive ability [11, 65,66,67], but integration of this into surgical management could prove difficult given the technical limitations of using this intraoperatively and the risk of labyrinthine fibrosis if implantation is performed in a delayed fashion [68]. Future investigation should focus on identifying biomarkers of neural integrity which could allow for more consistent CI performance.
An additional area of consideration is tumor surveillance after CI placement. In the past, magnet removal was required for MRIs, but recent advancements both in imaging techniques and implant technology have made it more feasible to perform MRI without substantial magnetic interference with image quality [69, 70]. However, high-definition imaging is required for tumor or postoperative surveillance, where small changes in size or shape may denote growth and dictate the need for future treatment (Fig. 1). Notably, a recent study by Dornhoffer et al. has noted no issues with surveillance after implantation in a relatively sizeable cohort of patients [71••]. Homogenization of imaging technique across centers may allow for adequate tumor surveillance despite potential artifact, but long-term assessment of tumor surveillance in this setting is required to assure that even small amounts of change can be accurately observed.
Representative magnetic resonance images from a patient with a history of a left-sided sporadic vestibular schwannoma status post translabyrinthine approach and resection. A. showcases a T1-weight MRI with contrast and B. depicts a T2-weight MRI. Note the distortion associated with the cochlear implant magnet, which mandates close evaluation of the surgical cavity through multiple sequences and slices
Data on non-tumor CIs has noted that limiting the duration of deafness prior to implantation portends better audiologic outcomes [72]. Although the pathophysiology of hearing decline in VS patients remains to be completely elucidated [73], it is likely that the duration of hearing loss in VS could affect CI performance. With results in the study by Dornhoffer et al. [71••], investigation into the implantation of observed VS is warranted, with the potential for patients to be rehabilitated even if tumor treatment is not indicated. An additional consideration is the effect of timing of implantation on outcomes after microsurgical resection. Simultaneous implantation is typically recommended given the risk of cochlear ossification [68], but both clinical and billing considerations may prevent this from occurring. Delayed implantation can be performed as evidenced by small series [62, 71••], but further study is needed to assess the implications of this delay on the ultimate hearing result.
Moreover, within CI literature at-large, there has been an increasing focus on outcomes such as quality-of-life [74,75,76,77,78]. CI-specific quality-of-life tools have been formulated and applied to various CI populations, but implementation of these measures in the VS population has not yet occurred. When considering NF2 patients, who are at high risk of bilateral profound hearing loss, benefits such as sound awareness are of particular importance and may be better suited for evaluation via quality-of-life measures than traditional audiometric testing. Similarly, the benefits of restoring binaural hearing in the sporadic VS population serves as an area of further quality-of-life study as has been noted in the SSD population [25]. In combination, this area appears ripe for further research as the field attempts to understand the marriage of this technology into the care of VS patients.
Conclusion
In conclusion, CI outcomes in patients with VSs greatly vary depending on management strategies, with less invasive strategies like observation or radiosurgery consistently being associated with superior audiometric outcomes. In patients with NF2, hearing outcomes with CI exceed those with the traditional ABIs, but patient specific factors, including tumor size and treatment strategy, are critical in selecting patients who could benefit from this modality. Future directions include investigation into biomarkers for neural integrity to optimize postoperative CI performance, tumor surveillance technology, and quality-of-life measurements in the VS population.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Carlson ML. Cochlear Implantation in Adults. Ingelfinger JR, ed. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1531–42. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1904407.
Huang X, Xu J, Xu M, et al. Clinical features of intracranial vestibular schwannomas. Oncol Lett. 2013;5(1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2012.1011.
Ren Y, Chari DA, Vasilijic S, Welling DB, Stankovic KM. New developments in neurofibromatosis type 2 and vestibular schwannoma. Neuro-Oncol Adv. 2021;3(1):vdaa153. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa153.
Early S, Rinnooy Kan CE, Eggink M, Frijns JHM, Stankovic KM. Progression of contralateral hearing loss in patients With Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma. Front Neurol. 2020;11:796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00796.
Drusin MA, Lubor B, Losenegger T, Selesnick S. Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(6):1558–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28316.
• Doerfer KW, Fritz CG, Porps SL, Hong RS, Jacob JT, Babu SC. Twelve-month outcomes of simultaneous translabyrinthine resection and cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2023;169(2):358–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.261. This prospective study follows 13 patients undergoing simultaneous cochlear implantation (CI) and translabyrnthine resection of sporadic vestibular schwannoma for 12-months. The study describes pre-operative and post-operative audiometric outcomes in details. Patients significant improvements in speech perception and tinitus reduction started at 3-months post-operatively and were maintained thereafter. Predicting CI outcomes and selecting appropriate candidate for simultaneous CI and tumor resection surgery is an area of active research, and this study supports favorable long-term outcomes in patients with small unilateral sporadic vestibular schwannomas.
Kitterick PT, Smith SN, Lucas L. Hearing instruments for unilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear. 2016;37(5):495–507. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000313.
Lloyd SKW, King AT, Rutherford SA, et al. Hearing optimisation in neurofibromatosis type 2: A systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol Off J ENT-UK Off J Neth Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Cervico-Facial Surg. 2017;42(6):1329–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12882.
Oh SJ, Mavrommatis MA, Fan CJ, et al. Cochlear implantation in adults with single-sided deafness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2023;168(2):131–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998221083283.
Sanna M, Piccirillo E, Kihlgren C, Cagliero G, Guidi M, Saleh E. Simultaneous cochlear implantation after translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma resection: a report of 41 cases. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(9):1414–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003258.
Sanna M, Medina MDM, Macak A, Rossi G, Sozzi V, Prasad SC. Vestibular schwannoma resection with ipsilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation in patients with normal contralateral hearing. Audiol Neurotol. 2016;21(5):286–95. https://doi.org/10.1159/000448583.
Rooth MA, Dillon MT, Brown KD. Prospective evaluation of patients undergoing translabyrinthine excision of vestibular schwannoma with concurrent cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(10):1512–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001570.
Achena A, Achena F, Dragonetti AG, et al. Cochlear implant evolving indications: our outcomes in adult patients. Audiol Res. 2022;12(4):414–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12040042.
Zwolan TA, Basura G. determining cochlear implant candidacy in adults: limitations, expansions, and opportunities for improvement. Semin Hear. 2021;42(04):331–41. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1739283.
FDA approves Cochlear Nucleus Implants for unilateral hearing loss/single-sided deafness. Cochlear. Accessed 27 Jan 2024. https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/corporate/media-center/media-releases/2022/fda-approves-cochlear-nucleus-implants-for-unilateral-hearing-loss-single-sided-deafness.
Carlson ML, Sladen DP, Gurgel RK, Tombers NM, Lohse CM, Driscoll CL. Survey of the American Neurotology Society on cochlear implantation: part 1, candidacy assessment and expanding indications. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(1):e12–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001632.
Távora-Vieira D, Wedekind A. Single-sided deafness: emotional and social handicap, impact on health status and quality of life, functional hearing, and the effects of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(10):1116–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003725.
Tang D, Tran Y, Lo C, et al. The benefits of cochlear implantation for adults: a systematic umbrella review. Ear Hear. Published online January 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001473.
Sullivan CB, Al-Qurayshi Z, Zhu V, et al. Long-term audiologic outcomes after cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(7):1805–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28358.
Thompson N, O’Connell B, Brown K. Translabyrinthine excision of vestibular schwannoma with concurrent cochlear implantation: systematic review. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2019;80(02):187–95. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1677491.
Friedmann DR, Ahmed OH, McMenomey SO, Shapiro WH, Waltzman SB, Roland JT. Single-sided deafness cochlear implantation: candidacy, evaluation, and outcomes in children and adults. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):e154–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000951.
Galvin JJ, Fu QJ, Wilkinson EP, et al. Benefits of cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness: data from the House Clinic-University of Southern California-University of California. Los Angeles Clinical Trial Ear Hear. 2019;40(4):766–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000671.
Daher GS, Kocharyan A, Dillon MT, Carlson ML. Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol. 2023;44(4):297–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003833.
Idriss SA, Reynard P, Marx M, et al. Short- and long-term effect of cochlear implantation on disabling tinnitus in single-sided deafness patients: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5664. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195664.
Tolisano AM, Pillion EM, Dirks CE, Ryan MT, Bernstein JGW. Quality of life impact of cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness: assessing the interrelationship of objective and subjective measures. Otol Neurotol. 2023;44(3):e125–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003783.
Nassiri AM, Sorkin DL, Carlson ML. Current estimates of cochlear implant utilization in the United States. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(5):e558–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003513.
Bierbaum M, McMahon CM, Hughes S, et al. Barriers and facilitators to cochlear implant uptake in Australia and the United Kingdom. Ear Hear. 2020;41(2):374–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000762.
Kato MG, Kaul VF, Hallak D, Zhang L, Moberly AC, Ren Y. Why Do Cochlear Implant Candidates Defer Surgery? A Retrospective Case–Control Study. The Laryngoscope. Published online December 29, 2023:lary.31254. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31254.
Kaul VF, Dzubara BPG, Munjal V, Katta J, Adunka OF, Ren Y. Investigating Deferral Rates in Cochlear Implantation: How Often Do Candidates Defer and Why? Otol Neurotol. 2024;45(1):24–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004045.
Reznitsky M, Petersen MMBS, West N, Stangerup SE, Cayé-Thomasen P. Epidemiology Of Vestibular Schwannomas – Prospective 40-Year Data From An Unselected National Cohort. Clin Epidemiol. 2019;11:981–6. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S218670.
Marinelli JP, Beeler CJ, Carlson ML, Caye-Thomasen P, Spear SA, Erbele ID. Global Incidence of Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma: A Systematic Review. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2022;167(2):209–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998211042006.
Stangerup SE, Tos M, Thomsen J, Caye-Thomasen P. Hearing outcomes of vestibular schwannoma patients managed with ‘wait and scan’: predictive value of hearing level at diagnosis. J Laryngol Otol. 2010;124(5):490–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215109992611.
Hunter JB, Dowling EM, Lohse CM, et al. Hearing Outcomes in Conservatively Managed Vestibular Schwannoma Patients With Serviceable Hearing. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(8):e704–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001914.
Sughrue ME, Yang I, Aranda D, et al. The natural history of untreated sporadic vestibular schwannomas: a comprehensive review of hearing outcomes: Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2010;112(1):163–7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.4.JNS08895.
Patel NS, Huang AE, Dowling EM, et al. The Influence of Vestibular Schwannoma Tumor Volume and Growth on Hearing Loss. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2020;162(4):530–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819900396.
Reznitsky M, Cayé-Thomasen P. Systematic Review of Hearing Preservation in Observed Vestibular Schwannoma. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2019;80(02):165–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1679894.
Elliott A, Hebb ALO, Walling S, Morris DP, Bance M. Hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma management. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36(4):526–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.02.016.
Carlson ML, Vivas EX, McCracken DJ, et al. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on Hearing Preservation Outcomes in Patients With Sporadic Vestibular Schwannomas. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(2):E35–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx511.
Rowe JG, Radatz M, Walton L, Kemeny AA. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Type 2 Neurofibromatosis Acoustic Neuromas: Patient Selection and Tumour Size. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2002;79(2):107–16. https://doi.org/10.1159/000070106.
DgR E. Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2): A clinical and molecular review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009;4(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-4-16.
Mahboubi H, Maducdoc MM, Yau AY, et al. Vestibular Schwannoma Excision in Sporadic versus Neurofibromatosis Type 2 Populations. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2015;153(5):822–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599815573223.
Bartindale MR, Tadokoro KS, Kircher ML. Cochlear Implantation in Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma: A Systematic Literature Review. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2019;80(06):632–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676768.
Gadenstaetter AJ, Auinger AB, Gerlitz M, et al. Functional Outcome After Simultaneous Vestibular Schwannoma Resection and Cochlear Implantation With Intraoperative Cochlear Nerve Monitoring. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2023;168(6):1502–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.233.
Dallari V, Apa E, Monzani D, et al. Cochlear Implantation Following Transcanal Infrapromontorial Approach for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Case Series. Audiol Res. 2022;13(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres13010001.
Dahm V, Auinger AB, Honeder C, et al. Simultaneous Vestibular Schwannoma Resection and Cochlear Implantation Using Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Audiometry for Decision-making. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(9):1266–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002747.
Medina MM, Polo R, Amilibia E, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Intracochlear Test Electrode for Acoustic Nerve Monitoring in Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery. Ear Hear. 2020;41(6):1648–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000883.
Patel NS, Saoji AA, Olund AP, Carlson ML. Monitoring Cochlear Nerve Integrity During Vestibular Schwannoma Microsurgery in Real-Time Using Cochlear Implant Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response and Streaming Neural Response Imaging. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(2):e201–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002458.
Roberts S, Levin B, Sanli H, Ferch R, Kong K, Eisenberg R. Simultaneous cochlear implantation and removal of acoustic neuroma: implications for hearing. J Laryngol Otol. 2020;134(6):519–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215120000705.
Tadokoro K, Bartindale MR, El-Kouri N, Moore D, Britt C, Kircher M. Cochlear Implantation in Vestibular Schwannoma: A Systematic Literature Review. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2021;82(6):643–51. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715606.
Conway RM, Tu NC, Sioshansi PC, et al. Early outcomes of simultaneous translabyrinthine resection and cochlear implantation. The Laryngoscope. 2021;131(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29436.
Urban MJ, Moore DM, Kwarta K, et al. Ipsilateral Cochlear Implantation in the Presence of Observed and Irradiated Vestibular Schwannomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020;129(12):1229–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489420935482.
Longino ES, Manzoor NF, Cass ND, et al. Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Observed Vestibular Schwannoma: A Preliminary Report. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2022;167(1):149–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998211045903.
Wallerius KP, Macielak RJ, Lawlor SK, et al. Hearing Preservation Microsurgery in Vestibular Schwannomas: Worth Attempting in “Larger” Tumors? Laryngoscope. 2022;132(8):1657–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29968.
Dornhoffer JR, Plitt AR, Lohse CM, et al. Comparing speech recognition outcomes between cochlear implants and auditory brainstem implants in patients with NF2-related schwannomatosis. Otol Neurotol. 2024;45(1):29–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004047.
Sobczak G, Marchant W, Misurelli S, Pyle GM, Gubbels S, Roche J. Efficacy of Cochlear Implantation in Neurofibromatosis Type 2 Related Hearing Loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2023;132(3):284–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894221091010.
Tan H, Jia H, Li Y, et al. Impact of cochlear implantation on the management strategy of patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(11):2667–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5127-9.
Harris F, Tysome JR, Donnelly N, et al. Cochlear implants in the management of hearing loss in Neurofibromatosis Type 2. Cochlear Implants Int. 2017;18(3):171–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2017.
•• Deep NL, Patel EJ, Shapiro WH, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in neurofibromatosis Type 2: Implications for management. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(4):540–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002994. This retrospective study investigates predictors of cochlear implant (CI) outcomes in 24 pateints undergoing cochlear implantation due to neurofibromatosis type 2 schwannomatosis related hearing loss. They found tumor size to significanty influence benefit from CI in terms of speech perception. Tumor management modality also influenced hearing outcomes, specifically for larger tumors. Patients with tumors greater than 1.5 cm had higher rate of open set speech discrimination with tumor radiation or observation compared to microsurgery. The results of this study provide valuable insight into CI candidate selection based on tumor size and choice of tumor management modality.
Patel NS, Carlson ML, Link MJ, Neff BA, Van Gompel JJ, Driscoll CLW. Cochlear implantation after radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma. J Neurosurg. Published online July 2020:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.4.JNS201069.
Sorrentino F, Tealdo G, Cazzador D, et al. Cochlear implant in vestibular schwannomas: long-term outcomes and critical analysis of indications. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(10):4709–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07243-0.
Seo S, Shen S, Ding AS, Creighton FX. Longitudinal performance of cochlear implants in neurofibromatosis Type 2. The Laryngoscope. Published online September 12, 2023:lary.31044. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31044.
Butler MJ, Wick CC, Shew MA, et al. Intraoperative cochlear nerve monitoring for vestibular schwannoma resection and simultaneous cochlear implantation in neurofibromatosis Type 2: A case series. Oper Neurosurg. 2021;21(5):324–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opab274.
Kasbekar A, Tam YC, Carlyon R, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of the cochlear nerve during neurofibromatosis type-2 vestibular schwannoma surgery and description of a “Test Intracochlear Electrode.” J Neurol Surg Rep. 2019;80(01):e1–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1673649.
Lloyd SKW, Glynn FJ, Rutherford SA, et al. Ipsilateral cochlear implantation after cochlear nerve preserving vestibular schwannoma surgery in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000185.
Di Lella F, Merkus P, Di Trapani G, Taibah A, Guida M, Sanna M. Vestibular schwannoma in the only hearing ear: Role of cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(2):91–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941312200204.
Carlson ML, Breen JT, Driscoll CL, et al. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2: Variables affecting auditory performance. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(5):853–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318254fba5.
Neff BA, Wiet RM, Lasak JM, et al. Cochlear implantation in the neurofibromatosis type 2 patient: long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(6):1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804b1ae7.
Feng Y, Lane JI, Lohse CM, Carlson ML. Pattern of cochlear obliteration after vestibular Schwannoma resection according to surgical approach. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(2):474–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27945.
Edmonson HA, Carlson ML, Patton AC, Watson RE. MR imaging and cochlear implants with retained internal magnets: reducing artifacts near highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields. Radiographics. 2018;38(1):94–106. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170135.
Berry JM, Tansey JB, Wu L, et al. A systematic review of cochlear implant-related magnetic resonance imaging artifact: implications for clinical imaging. Otol Neurotol. 2024;45(3):204–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004095.
•• Dornhoffer JR, Haller T, Lohse CM, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes between patients with sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 2–associated vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol. 2023;44(8):791–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003963. Dornhoffer et al. study is of a retrospective cohort of 49 patients with sporadic and Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2)-associated schwannomatosis. The study shed light on the variations in CI outcomes based on tumor management strategy. Less invasive treatment modalities, such as observation or radiosurgery, resulted in more favorable outcomes compared to tumor microsurgery in both sporadic and NF2 vestibular shwannoma patients. These finidngs are crucial in enhancing candidate selection for CI.
Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: An Update with 2251 Patients. Audiol Neurotol. 2013;18(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343189.
Brooks KA, Vivas EX. Natural history of hearing loss in sporadic vestibular schwannoma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2023;56(3):435–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2023.02.005.
McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Development of the cochlear implant quality of life item bank. Ear Hear. 2019;40(4):1016–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000684.
McRackan TR, Hand BN, Chidarala S, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global Scores for Experienced Cochlear Implant Users from a Multi-Institutional Study. Otol Neurotol. 2022;43(7):797–802. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003596.
McRackan TR, Hand BN, Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Consortium, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments. Ear Hear. 2021;42(4):896–908. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001022.
McRackan TR, Hand BN, Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(9):3554–62. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-19-0142.
Crowson MG, Semenov YR, Tucci DL, Niparko JK. Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review. Audiol Neurotol. 2017;22(4–5):236–58. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481767.
Funding
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, K08DC020761, American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, CSDA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.H., R.M., L.Z., and Y.R. wrote the main manuscript text. R.M. prepared Figure 1. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts interests.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hallak, D., Macielak, R.J., Zhang, L. et al. Cochlear Implantation and Vestibular Schwannoma Management. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-024-00505-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-024-00505-5