Conclusion: Bone conduction implants are useful in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss for whom conventional surgery or hearing aids are no longer an option. They may also be used in patients affected by single-sided deafness. Objectives: To establish a consensus on the quality standards required for centers willing to create a bone conduction implant program. Method: To ensure a consistently high level of service and to provide patients with the best possible solution the members of the HEARRING network have established a set of quality standards for bone conduction implants. These standards constitute a realistic minimum attainable by all implant clinics and should be employed alongside current best practice guidelines. Results: Fifteen items are thoroughly analyzed. They include team structure, accommodation and clinical facilities, selection criteria, evaluation process, complete preoperative and surgical information, postoperative fitting and assessment, follow-up, device failure, clinical management, transfer of care and patient complaints.

Conclusion: Cochlear implants improve the hearing abilities of individuals with unilateral hearing loss and no tinnitus. The benefit is no different from that seen in patients with unilateral hearing loss and incapacitating tinnitus. Objective: To evaluate hearing outcomes after cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral hearing loss and no tinnitus and compare them to those obtained in a similar group who had incapacitating tinnitus. Methods: Six cases who did not experience tinnitus before operation and 15 subjects with pre-operative tinnitus were evaluated with a structured interview, a monosyllabic word test under difficult listening situations, a sound localization test, and an APHAB (abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit) questionnaire. Results: All subjects used their cochlear implant more than 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. In ‘no tinnitus’ patients, mean benefit of cochlear implantation was 19% for quiet speech, 15% for speech in noise (with the same signal-to-noise ratio in the implanted and non-implanted ear), and 16% for a more favourable signal-to-noise ratio at the implanted ear. Sound localization error improved by an average of 19°. The global score of APHAB improved by 16%. The benefits across all evaluations did not differ significantly between the ‘no tinnitus’ and ‘tinnitus’ groups.

The main aim of this study was to assess the clinical effect of steroids (dexamethasone and prednisone) on hearing preservation in patients who underwent cochlear implantation with different cochlear implant systems (Oticon^®, Advanced Bionics^®, Med-El^®). 147 adult patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled to the study and divided into three groups depending on the brand of cochlear implant they received and participated in all follow-up visits regularly. They were also randomly divided into three subgroups depending on the steroid administration regime: (1) intravenous dexamethasone (0.1 mg/kg body weight twice a day for three days); (2) combined intravenous and oral steroids (dexamethasone 0.1 mg/kg body weight twice a day plus prednisone 1 mg/kg weight once a day); and (3) no steroids (control group). The results were measured by pure tone audiometry (PTA) at three time points: (i) before implantation, (ii) at processor activation, and (iii) 12 months after activation. A hearing preservation (HP) figure was also calculated by comparing the preoperative results and the results after 12 months. Further measures collected were electrode impedance and hearing threshold in the non-operated ear. The highest HP measures (partial and complete) were obtained in the subgroups who were given steroids. Of the 102 patients given steroids, HP was partial or complete in 63 of them (62%). In comparison, partial or complete HP was achieved in only 15 patients out of 45 (33%) who were not given steroids. There were differences between the three cochlear implant groups, with the Med-El and Advanced Bionics groups performing better than the Oticon group (45% and 43% of the former two groups achieved partial or complete HP compared to 20% in the latter). Hearing thresholds in the non-operated ear were stable over 12 months. Generally, impedance was slightly lower in the 12 month follow-up in comparison with the activation period, with the exception of the Oticon group. (4) Conclusions: Pharmacological treatment with steroids in patients undergoing cochlear implantation helps to preserve residual hearing.

OBJECTIVES: The intracochlear electrocochleography (ECoG) could be recorded directly from the cochlear implant (CI) electrode in CI recipients with residual hearing. The primary objective of this study is to identify the most sensitive frequency to record cochlear microphonics (CM) in CI users with a wide degree of hearing abilities and deep electrode insertion. The secondary objective is to identify the optimum location within the cochlea to record intracochlear potentials. MATERIALS and METHODS: CMs were recorded from the CI electrodes in eight females and eight males implanted with CIs Pulsar, Concerto, or Sonata, Med-El Corp. RESULTS: Among the tone pips of various frequencies, 1k or 500 Hz were the most sensitive for CI users. The most sensitive place in the cochlea to record the CM potentials depended on the tone frequency used. The deeper into the cochlea the mean maximum CM peak-to-peak amplitude was measured, the lower the stimulating tone frequency was. CONCLUSION: The most optimal recording parameters identified for intracochlear CM recording can be useful for intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of cochlear health in CI users with residual hearing. Cite this article as: Lorens A, Walkowiak A, Polak M, Kowalczuk A, Furmanek M, Skarzynski H, et al. Cochlear Microphonics in Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantees. J Int Adv Otol 2019; 15(3): 345-51.