Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The indications for cochlear implantation have gradually expanded as advancements in technology have evolved, resulting in improved audiologic outcomes for both adult and children. There remains a significant underutilization of cochlear implant technology in the United States, and recognition of the potential benefits of cochlear implantation for non-traditional indications is critical for encouraging the evolution of candidacy criteria. Adult cochlear implantation candidacy has progressed from patients with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) to include patients with greater degrees of residual hearing, single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing, and atypical etiologies of hearing loss (eg, vestibular schwannoma, Ménière’s disease, and otosclerosis). Indications for pediatric cochlear implantation have similarly evolved from children with bilateral severe to profound SNHL to implanting children at a younger age, including those with residual hearing, asymmetric hearing loss, inner ear malformations, as well as cochlear nerve deficiency. In this editorial, the literature investigating cochlear implantation for nontraditional indications is reviewed with an aim to use the best available evidence to encourage the evolution of candidacy criteria.

Keywords

cochlear implantation hearing loss pediatric hearing loss cochlear implant candidacy implantable hearing devices

Introduction

Cochlear implantation is a well-established treatment for adults and children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Since the approval of the original single-channel cochlear implant (CI) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the device has rapidly evolved into several commercially available multichannel systems.^1
–3 Due to advancements in engineering and speech processing technology, associated improved outcomes, and increased familiarity of the medical and audiologic communities, indications have slowly but consistently expanded. Despite the gradual expansion of candidacy criteria, there is significant underutilization of very effective technology. In this editorial, the evolving criteria for adult and pediatric cochlear implantation are reviewed with an eye to encouraging appropriate utilization of CI.

Adult Cochlear Implantation

Audiologic candidacy for cochlear implantation has historically been based on aided sentence recognition performance (eg, AzBio sentences). Traditional FDA criteria evolved from bilateral profound SNHL to bilateral moderate to profound levels of hearing loss with limited benefit from conventional amplification.^4

–7 Food and Drug Administration thresholds for candidacy increased to ≤50% speech recognition ability in the ear to be implanted or ≤60% in the binaural best-aided condition. Scores up to 60% are currently used by many private insurers while Medicare criteria remain ≤40%. Protocols for incorporating noise into CI evaluations vary by institution; however, patients who qualify exclusively with noise have been shown to benefit from CIs.⁸ Monosyllabic word recognition has been proposed as an alternative tool due to performance ceiling effects and the semantic context associated with sentences.^4,5 Monosyllables are challenging and provide a more accurate metric for monitoring improvement. Sladen et al described the ceiling effect with AzBio sentences within 3 months of CI use, while consonant–nucleus–consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word scores only reached 80%.⁴ The study included patients with CNC scores up to 40% and demonstrated speech recognition outcomes at least equivocal to the 2007 Nucleus Freedom North American trial, which used a stricter criterion of CNC <30%. A CNC score of ≤40% has thus been suggested as a threshold for candidacy. The Sladen et al study also demonstrated the potential benefit of CI in patients whose performance exceeded “traditional” criteria.^4,7 Gifford et al investigated speech perception in CI users with preoperative CNC scores ≥30% (ie, exceeding the criteria of the Nucleus Freedom trial).^5,7 Improved scores were seen regardless of listening condition (CI with or without contralateral amplification). Several studies have demonstrated similar results in patients whose performance exceeded “traditional” criteria.^4,6,9

–12 The authors encouraged a reassessment of candidacy criteria to include patients not benefitting from conventional amplification. As traditional criteria evolve, guidelines may specify word recognition performance as the primary indicator of potential benefit from CI.

Patients with residual low-frequency hearing who struggle with hearing aids are an example of those who may fail to meet traditional CI criteria. For these patients, CIs with “electric-acoustic stimulation” allow amplification of low frequencies and electrical stimulation of the middle- and high-frequency ranges.¹³ Electric-acoustic stimulation, introduced in 1999 and FDA approved in 2014, improves speech recognition in noise and provides a finer spectral resolution of complex auditory stimuli (eg, music).^6,14
–16 Food and Drug Administration labeling for a shortened electrode array specifies unilateral CNC word scores ≤60% for candidacy, although the addition of acoustic amplification is possible even with a full-length array. As “hybrid” CIs gained popularity, efforts turned toward minimizing trauma during electrode insertion to preserve intracochlear structures and thus residual hearing. Electrode length was identified as a critical factor: greater insertion depth provides improved speech perception in “traditional” candidates but may destroy residual hearing. Shorter electrodes, however, may compromise outcomes for patients who ultimately lose residual hearing and require electric-only stimulation.^6,17
–19 Optimizing insertion depth (∼360°), thinner electrodes, and round window insertions (vs cochleostomy) were recognized as strategies for “soft” surgery.^20
–22 Intraoperative monitoring via electrocochleography has also become available as an adjunctive tool to minimize intracochlear trauma.^23,24 Intraoperative electrocochleography may be obtained directly through the CI during insertion; acoustic stimulation is provided with an insertion of earphone, whereas cochlear hair cell and neural responses are detected through the electrode array.²⁵ The recorded signal provides intraoperative feedback regarding cochlear hair cell function and may influence the insertion technique or depth of insertion when hearing preservation is intended.

A difficult question for unilateral CI users may be the decision to pursue a second implant. Two implants provide the benefits of binaural hearing, including sound localization, binaural summation and squelch, and speech recognition with spatially separated noise.^26
–28 Cochlear implant users with residual hearing in their contralateral ear may receive complementary (ie, “bimodal”) input when aided. However, for patients who are not clearly receiving bimodal benefit, the decision to pursue a second CI is not straightforward. Gifford and Dorman compared speech recognition between adults using bimodal stimulation and adults with bilateral CIs.²⁶ No significant differences in speech perception or binaural summation were seen using traditional clinical measures. Interestingly, the patient’s perception of whether a second CI is warranted appeared to be of greater clinical utility than routine objective testing.

Cochlear implants have increasingly been performed for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). Traditional treatments included contralateral routing of signals or bone-conduction hearing aids. Cochlear implants were initially discouraged due to the misconception that electric stimulation would not integrate with contralateral acoustic input. However, van de Heyning et al demonstrated feasibility after implanting 21 patients with SSD and debilitating tinnitus.²⁹ All patients experienced tinnitus improvement and became daily CI users. Implanted SSD patients experience a reduction in tinnitus as well as improved speech perception in noise, sound localization, and quality of life.^30

–35 In 2019, MED-EL’s CI system was the first device approved by the FDA for SSD.

Cochlear implants have also been performed for atypical etiologies that may introduce unique challenges and unpredictable outcomes. Patients with advanced otosclerosis may develop cochlear ossification or round window obliteration, requiring an extended cochleostomy.^36,37 Cochlear ossification may impact the electrode–neural interface, affecting performance.³⁸ Posttraumatic SNHL (eg, temporal bone fracture) may be associated with intracochlear fibrosis.^39,40 Cochlear implantation has also been well-described for patients with Ménière’s disease (MD) with favorable audiologic outcomes.⁴¹ However, these patients may pose a challenge postoperatively by exhibiting fluctuating performance requiring device reprogramming.^41,42 In patients with bilateral MD, the status of the contralateral vestibular system must be considering CI as surgical violation of the inner ear may result in additional vestibular injury. Patients with MD who have previously undergone labyrinthectomy may require updated imaging (ie, computed tomography) to ensure a patent cochlear duct is present. Approximately one-third of patients undergoing a labyrinthectomy develop cochlear ossification, which would preclude insertion of an electrode array.⁴³ Patients with vestibular schwannomas can also benefit from CIs, regardless of treatment modality, if an intact and functional cochlear nerve can be preserved.^44

–47 The imaging artifact created on magnetic resonance imaging by CIs must be considered in patients for whom surveillance is desired. For intralabyrinthine or intracochlear schwannomas, cochleostomy or cochleoectomy may be required; the electrode may be inserted through tumor if resection is not possible.^48
–50

In conclusion, adult CI criteria have expanded to include patients with greater degrees of residual hearing, SSD, and atypical etiologies of SNHL. However, CIs are only being provided to the minority of patients who would meet candidacy criteria.⁵¹ Reasons for this underutilization may include poor regional access, unfamiliarity with the device, and a lack of understanding the population who may benefit. As awareness of the technology improves, research efforts will continue to expand the definition of candidacy and potential indications for CI.

Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Clearly, the evidence supports expanding indications for adult CI candidacy. It is arguably even more critical for children to have sufficient access to sound to facilitate the development of speech and language. As such, one might expect pediatric CI candidacy to be more expansive to ensure that children do not miss out on critical opportunities for the development of higher-level auditory centers and associated communication abilities. Counterintuitively, the CI candidacy criteria for children is actually more stringent than adults, creating potential, at times, insurmountable barriers to CI until a child demonstrates unmistakable difficulty with hearing and communication. In fact, according to FDA labeling, children must miss 70% to 88% of the incoming signal to qualify for CI.⁵² Since the late 1990s, FDA labeling for pediatric CI has remained static, requiring children under 2 years of age to have profound (>90 dB HL) bilateral SNHL and children 2 to 17 to have severe-to-profound bilateral SNHL. In both cases, they must also demonstrate little to no benefit with appropriately fitted hearing aids. Yet, the evidence in the literature is compelling that attitudes and clinical decision-making toward CI must be more aggressive and progressive than labeling suggests in order to obtain the best outcomes. This perspective is particularly true in 4 aspects of candidacy: asymmetric hearing, residual hearing, age at implantation, and structural anomalies.

First, studies have demonstrated that, as with adults, considering each ear individually is critically important in the determination of CI candidacy for pediatric patients.^52
–54 Maintenance of binaural stimulation is essential for localization and understanding speech in noise. Fortunately, FDA labeling was updated in July 2019 to include children aged 5 years and older who have SSD or asymmetric hearing loss with extremely poor word recognition (<5%). While the expansion of the indication to recognize the benefits of adequate binaural hearing, the literature suggests that children with greater degrees of word understanding in the poorer hearing ear may similarly benefit from implantation.^52,55
–57 Further, children under the age of 5 have also been successfully implanted. Cushing et al suggest that every effort must be made to limit the period of auditory deprivation in CI candidate ear, encouraging CI as early as possible before the age of 4 years in the case of congenital deafness.^53,58 Importantly, the combination of acoustic hearing in the better ear with electric in the poorer hearing ear, generally improves the pediatric recipient’s outcomes.

Second, residual hearing in the implanted ear need not be a contraindication to implantation. In fact, multiple studies have suggested that, although not FDA indicated, electroacoustic stimulation, sometimes combined with short electrode arrays, are similarly beneficial in children as adults.^59
–61 This benefit is particularly noticeable in background noise, where the signal-to-noise ratio is poor,⁵⁹ which is a common environment for school-age children.

Third, the current FDA guidelines for candidacy for pediatric CI require profound bilateral SNHL in children 9 to 24 months (age limits expanded in 2020). There is robust evidence supporting early implantation before 12 months of age but now, there is increasing evidence that shows that even earlier implantation, as early as 6 months, is safe and has improved outcomes.^62,63 Cochlear implant surgery in infants has been shown to have a slight increase in readmission rates,⁶⁴ but similar complication rates as older children.^63,65,66 In addition, earlier implantation has been shown to have better vocabulary outcomes,⁶⁷ better speech production,⁶³ auditory performance, and receptive language scores,⁶⁸ even if the contralateral ear is completely normal.⁵³ A series of 21 children who were implanted as early as 10 months (up to age 11 years) showed significant improvements in the combined head shadow effect, lateralization, and parental overall level of satisfaction.⁶⁹ Children also seem to be accepting of CI. In one series, children as young as 1 year of age have shown to be receptive of CI and shown consistent use of CI in setting of SSD.⁷⁰ Younger age at implantation thus seems to have beneficial outcomes whether CI is performed in setting of bilateral or unilateral hearing loss.

Cochlear anomalies, ossification, and cochlear nerve deficiency should not be viewed as an absolute contraindication for CI in children. Cochlear anomalies, which can range from mild to severe cochleovestibular dysplasia, have been shown to be safely implanted with favorable outcomes. A systematic review of outcomes with CI in inner ear dysplasia found postoperative speech perception abilities often ranges from 54% to 84% depending on the severity of dysplasia.⁷¹ Although lower than reported outcomes when compared to CI in normal anatomy, there is still meaningful benefit noted in speech perception outcomes.⁷² There is increased surgical difficulty noted in these patients, however, this is not prohibitive to implantation.^71,73 Similarly, cochlear ossification, which may be encountered after bacterial meningitis, has been shown to result in increased surgical difficulty and may affect audiologic outcome if sufficient electrodes are unable to be inserted.⁷⁴ Labyrinthitis ossificans has also been associated with an increased incidence of postoperative facial nerve stimulation after CI, which requires device remapping and electrode deactivation.⁷⁵

Distinct from inner ear malformations, cochlear nerve aplasia has long been considered a contraindication to CI. Cochlear nerve deficiency includes cochlear nerve aplasia in which the nerve is completely absent and nerve hypoplasia in which there is a smaller sized cochlear nerve in the internal auditory canal. Recently, the limitations of imaging in the differentiation of aplasia and cochlear nerve (CN) deficiency have been recognized. Kutz et al reported on a series of 7 patients who underwent CI with no evidence of nerve identified on imaging.⁷⁶ In this study, one child developed early closed-set speech recognition and the other 6 children developed only speech detection or pattern perception. In another larger series with 64 patients with cochlear nerve aplasia who underwent CI, nearly 50% of the patients achieved Categories of Auditory Performance scores of 5 to 7.⁷⁷ However, further studies are needed to evaluate outcomes over prolonged follow-up and with quality of life assessments to determine guidance for considering CI before proceeding to auditory brainstem implantation.

Finally, a patient’s cognitive or developmental delay should not be considered a contraindication nor a reason to withhold CI. Studies have shown that although speech and language development may not result after CI due to the underlying disability, families report broadened communication skills,⁷⁸ improved interactions,⁷⁹ and less familial stress.⁸⁰

In summary, the evidence for the expansion of pediatric CI continues to grow. It is incumbent on clinicians to recognize that while FDA labeling is often utilized to determine insurance coverage, it is often too stringent to reflect standard clinical practice and innovative approaches to hearing rehabilitation in children. The FDA criteria certainly do not capture all circumstances in which a child may benefit from implantation. By considering individual ear performance, communicative abilities, and child-specific development, clinicians can best equip children with access to technology that optimizes hearing and communicative outcomes.

Conclusion

Candidacy for CI in both the adult and pediatric populations have continued to expand, at least in clinical practice (Table 1). It is important to realize that despite the available evidence, FDA and insurance payer criteria tend to lag behind the best clinical practice and should not be considered an inflexible requirement for determining candidacy. Although there may persist discrepancy between candidacy and coverage, the clinician’s role is to advocate for those patients who stand to benefit from CI and encourage utilization as early as possible to maximize outcomes. As criteria continue to expand, it is imperative to encourage modification to outdated protocols and guidelines such that they align with literature-supported best clinical practice.

Table 1.

Summary of Evolving Criteria for Cochlear Implantation.

Evolving pediatric criteria	Evolving adult criteria
Decreased age of implantation (<9 months old)	Easing speech recognition performance thresholds for candidacy
Patients with residual hearing	Patients with residual hearing (eg, hearing preservation cochlear implantation, electric-acoustic stimulation)
Single-sided deafness (<5 years old)	Single-sided deafness
Cochlear nerve aplasia	Patients with vestibular, cochlear, or intralabyrinthine schwannomas (eg, neurofibromatosis type 2)
Inner ear malformations	Atypical etiologies of sensorineural hearing loss (eg, advanced otosclerosis, posttraumatic hearing loss, Ménière’s disease)

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Varun V. Varadarajan

References

Fretz

Fravel

. Design and function: a physical and electrical description of the 3 M House cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 1985;6(3 suppl):14S–19S. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3839470

House

Berliner

Cochlear implants: from idea to clinical practice. In: Cooper

, ed. Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide. Singular Publishing; 1991:9–33.

Wilson

Dorman

. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res. 2008;242(1-2):3–21. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005

Sladen

Gifford

Haynes

, et al. Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(10):2368–2374. doi:10.1002/lary.26513

Gifford

Dorman

Shallop

Sydlowski

. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear. 2010;31(2):186–194. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c6b831

Arnoldner

Lin

VYW

. Expanded selection criteria in adult cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(suppl 4):10–14. doi:10.1179/1467010013Z.000000000123

Balkany

Hodges

Menapace

, et al. Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;136(5):757–762. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2007.01.006

Mudery

Francis

McCrary

Jacob

. Older individuals meeting Medicare cochlear implant candidacy criteria in noise but not in quiet: are these patients improved by surgery? In: De Souza

Kirtane

, ed. Otology and Neurotology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017:187–191. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001271

Fraysse

Dillier

Klenzner

, et al. Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study. Am J Otol. 1998;19(5):591–597. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9752966

10.

Rubinstein

Parkinson

Tyler

Gantz

. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol. 1999;20(4):445–452. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10431885

11.

Adunka

Buss

Clark

Pillsbury

Buchman

. Effect of preoperative residual hearing on speech perception after cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(11):2044–2049. doi:10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181820900

12.

Amoodi

Mick

Shipp

, et al. Results with cochlear implantation in adults with speech recognition scores exceeding current criteria. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(1):6–12. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e318239e5a1

13.

Von Ilberg

Kiefer

Tillein

, et al. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. ORL. 1999;61(6):334–340. doi:10.1159/000027695

14.

Kiefer

Pok

Adunka

, et al. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurootol. 2005;10(3):134–144. doi:10.1159/000084023

15.

Turner

Reiss

LAJ

Gantz

. Combined acoustic and electric hearing: preserving residual acoustic hearing. Hear Res. 2008;242(1-2):164–171. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.008

16.

Roland

Gantz

Waltzman

Parkinson

. Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(8):1939–1945. doi:10.1002/lary.27073

17.

Adunka

Kiefer

. Impact of electrode insertion depth on intracochlear trauma. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2006;135(3):374–382. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2006.05.002

18.

Fitzgerald

Sagi

Jackson

, et al. Reimplantation of hybrid cochlear implant users with a full-length electrode after loss of residual hearing. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(2):168–173. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e31815c4875

19.

Gantz

Turner

. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope. 2003;113(10):1726–1730. doi:10.1097/00005537-200310000-00012

20.

Arnoldner

Helbig

Wagenblast

, et al. Electric acoustic stimulation in patients with postlingual severe high-frequency hearing loss: clinical experience. Cochlear Implants and Hearing Preservation. Karger; 2009:116–124. doi:10.1159/000262603

21.

Baumgartner

W-D

Jappel

Morera

, et al. Outcomes in adults implanted with the FLEX soft electrode. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(6):579–586. doi:10.1080/00016480600987784

22.

Roland

Wright

Isaacson

. Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(8):1397–1402. doi:10.1097/MLG.0b013e318064e891

23.

Giardina

Brown

Adunka

, et al. Intracochlear electrocochleography. Ear Hear. 2019;40(4):833–848. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000659

24.

Calloway

Fitzpatrick

Campbell

, et al. Intracochlear electrocochleography during cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(8):1451–1457. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000451

25.

Harris

Riggs

Koka

, et al. Real-time intracochlear electrocochleography obtained directly through a cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(6):e107–e113. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001425

26.

Gifford

Dorman

. Bimodal hearing or bilateral cochlear implants? Ask the patient. Ear Hear. 2019;40(3):501–516. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000657

27.

Schleich

Nopp

D’Haese

. Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2004;25(3):197–204. doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000130792.43315.97

28.

Dorman

Cook

Spahr

, et al. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant. Hear Res. 2015;322:107–111. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.010

29.

Van de Heyning

Vermeire

Diebl

Nopp

Anderson

De Ridder

. Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008;117(9):645–652. doi:10.1177/000348940811700903

30.

Hansen

Gantz

Dunn

. Outcomes after cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided deafness, including those with recalcitrant Ménière’s disease. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(9):1681–1687. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000102

31.

Arndt

Aschendorff

Laszig

, et al. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32(1):39–47. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181fcf271

32.

Vermeire

Van de Heyning

. Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurotol. 2009;14(3):163–171. doi:10.1159/000171478

33.

Firszt

Holden

Reeder

Waltzman

Arndt

. Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(8):1339–1346. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e318268d52d

34.

Peter

Liyanage

Pfiffner

Huber

Kleinjung

. The influence of cochlear implantation on tinnitus in patients with single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2019;161(4):576–588. doi:10.1177/0194599819846084

35.

Ketterer

Knopke

Häußler

, et al. Asymmetric hearing loss and the benefit of cochlear implantation regarding speech perception, tinnitus burden and psychological comorbidities: a prospective follow-up study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2018;275(11):2683–2693. doi:10.1007/s00405-018-5135-9

36.

Calvino

Sánchez-Cuadrado

Gavilán

Lassaletta

. Cochlear implant users with otosclerosis: are hearing and quality of life outcomes worse than in cochlear implant users without otosclerosis? Audiol Neurotol. 2019;23(6):345–355. doi:10.1159/000496191

37.

Kabbara

Gauche

Calmels

, et al. Decisive criteria between stapedotomy and cochlear implantation in patients with far advanced otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(3):e73–e78. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000692

38.

Vashishth

Fulcheri

Rossi

Prasad

Caruso

Sanna

. Cochlear implantation in otosclerosis: surgical and auditory outcomes with a brief on facial nerve stimulation. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(9):e345–e353. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001552

39.

Serin

Derinsu

Sari

, et al. Cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral cochlear trauma. Am J Otolaryngol Head Neck Med Surg. 2010;31(5):350–355. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2009.04.008

40.

Trakimas

Knoll

Ishai

, et al. Otopathology of unilateral cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral temporal bone fracture. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(1):e14–e19. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002057

41.

Samy

Houston

Scott

Choo

Meinzen-Derr

. Cochlear implantation in patients with Meniere’s disease. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16(4):208–212. doi:10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000104

42.

Doobe

Ernst

Ramalingam

Mittmann

Todt

. Simultaneous labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided Ménière’s disease and profound sensorineural hearing loss. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:457318. doi:10.1155/2015/457318

43.

Charlett

Biggs

. The prevalence of cochlear obliteration after labyrinthectomy using magnetic resonance imaging and the implications for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(8):1328–1330. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000803

44.

Ahsan

Telischi

Hodges

Balkany

. Cochlear implantation concurrent with translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection. Laryngoscope. 2003;113(3):472–474. doi:10.1097/00005537-200303000-00015

45.

Robert Bartindale

Tadokoro

Kircher

. Cochlear implantation in sporadic vestibular schwannoma: a systematic literature review. J Neurol Surg B. 2019;80:632–639. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1676768

46.

Lustig

Yeagle

Driscoll

CLW

Blevins

Francis

Niparko

. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and bilateral vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27(4):512–518. doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000217351.86925.51

47.

Lloyd

SKW

Glynn

Rutherford

, 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. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000185

48.

Plontke

Kösling

Rahne

. Cochlear implantation after partial or subtotal cochleoectomy for intracochlear schwannoma removal—a technical report. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(3):365–371. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001696

49.

Aschendorff

Arndt

Laszig

Wesarg

Hassepaß

Beck

. Treatment and auditory rehabilitation of intralabyrinthine schwannoma by means of cochlear implants: English version. HNO. 2017;65(suppl 1):46–51. doi:10.1007/s00106-016-0217-8

50.

Carlson

Neff

Sladen

Link

Driscoll

. Cochlear implantation in patients with intracochlear and intralabyrinthine schwannomas. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(6):647–653. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001016

51.

Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world’s largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(suppl 1):S12–S14. doi:10.1179/1467010013Z.00000000076

52.

Carlson

Sladen

Haynes

, et al. Evidence for the expansion of pediatric cochlear implant candidacy. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(1):43–50. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000607

53.

Cushing

Gordon

Sokolov

Papaioannou

Polonenko

Papsin

. Etiology and therapy indication for cochlear implantation in children with single-sided deafness: retrospective analysis. HNO. 2019;67(10):750–759. doi:10.1007/s00106-019-00729-8

54.

Friedmann

Ahmed

McMenomey

Shapiro

Waltzman

Thomas Roland

. Single-sided deafness cochlear implantation: Candidacy, evaluation, and outcomes in children and adults. In: De Souza

Kirtane

, ed. Otology and Neurotology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2016;37:e154–e160. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000951

55.

De Kleijn

Van Kalmthout

LWM

Van Der Vossen

MJB

Vonck

BMD

Topsakal

Bruijnzeel

. Identification of pure-tone audiologic thresholds for pediatric cochlear implant candidacy a systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(7):630–638. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0652

56.

Leigh

Dettman

Dowell

. Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation. Int J Audiol. 2016;55:S9–S18. doi:10.3109/14992027.2016.1157268

57.

Teagle

HFB

Park

Brown

Zdanski

Pillsbury

. Pediatric cochlear implantation: a quarter century in review. Cochlear Implants Int. 2019;20(6):288–298. doi:10.1080/14670100.2019.1655868

58.

Arndt

Prosse

Laszig

Wesarg

Aschendorff

Hassepass

. Cochlear implantation in children with single-sided deafness: does aetiology and duration of deafness matter? Audiol Neurotol. 2015;20(1):21–30. doi:10.1159/000380744

59.

Wolfe

Neumann

Schafer

Marsh

Wood

Baker

. Potential benefits of an integrated electric-acoustic sound processor with children: a preliminary report. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(2):127–140. doi:10.3766/jaaa.15133

60.

Gantz

Dunn

Walker

Van Voorst

Gogel

Hansen

. Outcomes of adolescents with a short electrode cochlear implant with preserved residual hearing. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):e118–e125. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000933

61.

Skarzynski

Lorens

Dziendziel

Skarzynski

. Expanding pediatric cochlear implant candidacy: a case study of electro-natural stimulation (ENS) in partial deafness treatment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(11):1896–1900. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.08.040

62.

Colletti

Mandalà

Colletti

. Cochlear implants in children younger than 6 months. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(1):139–146. doi:10.1177/0194599812441572

63.

Karltorp

Eklöf

Östlund

Asp

Tideholm

Löfkvist

. Cochlear implants before 9 months of age led to more natural spoken language development without increased surgical risks. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr. 2020;109(2):332–341. doi:10.1111/apa.14954

64.

Kalejaiye

Ansari

Ortega

Davidson

Kim

. Low surgical complication rates in cochlear implantation for young children less than 1 year of age. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(3):720–724. doi:10.1002/lary.26135

65.

Cosetti

Roland

. Cochlear implantation in the very young child: issues unique to the under-1 population. Trends Amplif. 2010;14(1):46–57. doi:10.1177/1084713810370039

66.

O’Connell

Holcomb

Morrison

Meyer

White

. Safety of cochlear implantation before 12 months of age: Medical University of South Carolina and Pediatric American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality improvement program outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(3):707–712. doi:10.1002/lary.25570

67.

Houston

Miyamoto

. Effects of early auditory experience on word learning and speech perception in deaf children with cochlear implants: implications for sensitive periods of language development. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(8):1248–1253. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181f1cc6a

68.

Bruijnzeel

Ziylan

Stegeman

Topsakal

Grolman

. A systematic review to define the speech and language benefit of early (<12 months) pediatric cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurotol. 2016;21(2):113–126. doi:10.1159/000443363

69.

Thomas

Neumann

Dazert

Voelter

. Cochlear implantation in children with congenital single-sided deafness. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(4):496–503. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000001343

70.

Polonenko

Papsin

Gordon

. Children with single-sided deafness use their cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2017;38(6):681–689. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000452

71.

Pakdaman

Herrmann

Curtin

Van Beek-King

Lee

. Cochlear implantation in children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2012;146(2):180–190. doi:10.1177/0194599811429244

72.

Isaiah

Lee

Lenes-Voit

, et al. Clinical outcomes following cochlear implantation in children with inner ear anomalies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;93:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.12.001

73.

Papsin

. Cochlear implantation in children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(S106):1–26. doi:10.1097/00005537-200501001-00001

74.

Liu

Sweeney

Booth

, et al. The impact of postmeningitic labyrinthitis ossificans on speech performance after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(10):1633–1637. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000877

75.

Nassiri

Yawn

Dedmon

, et al. Facial nerve stimulation patterns associated with cochlear implantation in labyrinthitis ossificans. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(10):e992–e995. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002028

76.

Kutz

Lee

Isaacson

Booth

Sweeney

Roland

. Cochlear implantation in children with cochlear nerve absence or deficiency. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32(6):956–961. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e31821f473b

77.

Birman

Powell

HRF

Gibson

WPR

Elliott

. Cochlear implant outcomes in cochlea nerve aplasia and hypoplasia. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(5):438–445. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000997

78.

Corrales

Oghalai

. Cochlear implant considerations in children with additional disabilities. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2013;1(2):61–68. doi:10.1007/s40136-013-0011-z

79.

Wiley

Jahnke

Meinzen-Derr

Choo

. Perceived qualitative benefits of cochlear implants in children with multi-handicaps. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(6):791–798. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.01.011

80.

Oghalai

Caudle

Bentley

, et al. Cognitive outcomes and familial stress after cochlear implantation in deaf children with and without developmental delays. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(6):947–956. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e318259b72b

Evolving Criteria for Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Adult Cochlear Implantation

Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

References