Objective: Up to now, treatment modalities of unilateral deafness consist of no treatment, conventional contralateral routing of signal (CROS), or Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) hearing aid. Cochlear implantation makes a new treatment modality available for patients with single-sided deafness. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of unilateral electrical stimulation with normal hearing on the contralateral side after a period of 6 months compared with the preoperative unaided situation, conventional CROS, or BAHA hearing aids. Study Design: Prospective design. Setting: Tertiary referral center; cochlear implant (CI) program. Patients: Eleven adult subjects with unilateral deafness of various causes were enrolled in the study. Only those patients were included in whom therapy with CROS hearing aid or BAHA was not successful and in whom the auditory nerve was found to be intact and the cochlea patent for cochlear implantation. Intervention: All subjects were fitted in random order with a BAHA Intenso mounted on the softband/tension clamp or with a CROS hearing aid. After test periods with both devices, the subjects received a CI. Main Outcome Measures: The Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentence test and the Oldenburg sentence test were used to test speech comprehension in 3 presentation configurations in the unaided situation, with conventional CROS and BAHA hearing aids before cochlear implantation as well as after 6 months with CI. Localization was assessed using an array of 7 speakers at head level in a frontal semicircle. Subjective improvement in daily life was evaluated using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, the Health Utilities Index 3 and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids questionnaires. Tinnitus distress was measured with a tinnitus scale before and after CI implantation. Results: The results show significant improvement in localization ability as well as in speech comprehension in most presentation configurations with the CI. Especially, there is no negative effect on speech comprehension if the noise is presented to the CI ear and speech to the normal hearing ear. With the CI, the summation and squelch effects are not significant, but a significant combined head shadow effect is seen. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing results show an overall benefit of wearing the CI compared with the other treatment options. The tinnitus scale revealed a positive effect of CI stimulation in cases of preoperative tinnitus. Conclusion: The results in these patients suggest that cochlear implantation improves hearing abilities in people with single-sided deafness and is superior to the alternative treatment options. The use of the CI does not interfere with speech understanding in the normal hearing ear. Our data suggest that the binaural integration of electric and acoustic stimulation is possible even with unilateral normal hearing.

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL. Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada. Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable. Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Objective This pilot study examined speech recognition, localization, temporal and spectral discrimination, and subjective reports of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral deafness. Study Design Three adult male participants with short-term unilateral deafness (<5 yr) participated. All had sudden onset of severe-to-profound hearing loss in 1 ear, which then received a CI, and normal or near normal hearing in the other ear. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, discrimination of temporal and spectral cues, and a subjective questionnaire were obtained over several days. Listening conditions were CI, normal hearing (NH) ear, and bilaterally (CI and NH). Results All participants had open-set speech recognition and excellent audibility (250–6,000 Hz) with the CI. Localization improved bilaterally compared with the NH ear alone. Word recognition in noise was significantly better bilaterally than with the NH ear for 2 participants. Sentence recognition in various noise conditions did not show significant bilateral improvement; however, the CI did not hinder performance in noise even when noise was toward the CI side. The addition of the CI improved temporal difference discrimination for 2 participants and spectral difference discrimination for all participants. Participants wore the CI full time, and subjective reports were positive. Conclusion Overall, the CI recipients with unilateral deafness obtained open-set speech recognition, improved localization, improved word recognition in noise, and improved perception of their ability to hear in everyday life. A larger study is warranted to further quantify the benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral deafness.

For adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), treatment with a cochlear implant (CI) is well established as an acceptable and beneficial hearing rehabilitation method administered routinely in clinical practice. In contrast, for children with SSD, CI has been applied less often to date, with the rationale to decide either on a case-by-case basis or under the realm of clinical research. The aim of our clinical study was to evaluate the longitudinal benefits of CI for a group of children diagnosed with SSD and to compare their outcomes with respect to patient characteristics. Evaluating a pool of paediatric SSD patients presenting for possible CI surgery revealed that the primary aetiology of deafness was congenital cochlear nerve deficiency. A subgroup of children meeting the CI candidacy criteria for the affected ear (the majority with acquired hearing loss) were enrolled in the study. Preliminary group results suggest substantial improvements in speech comprehension in noise and in the ability to localise sound, which was demonstrated through objective and subjective assessments after CI treatment for the group, with results varying from patient to patient. Our study shows a trend towards superior outcomes for children with acquired hearing loss and a shorter duration of hearing loss compared to congenitally deafened children who had a longer duration of SSD. This indicates an interactive influence of the age at onset, aetiology and duration of deafness upon the restoration of binaural integration and the overall benefits of sound stimulation to two ears after CI treatment. Continued longitudinal investigation of these children and further studies in larger groups may provide more guidance on the optimal timing of treatment for paediatric patients with acquired and congenital SSD.

Objectives Recently, several studies have shown that a cochlear implant is a suitable treatment for hearing rehabilitation of adults with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (UHL), and benefits for speech comprehension in noise and localization have been demonstrated. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the benefit of cochlear implantation in children with UHL in comparison to their unaided listening situation. Study design Prospective repeated measures single subject design. Setting Tertiary referral center; cochlear implant (CI) program Patients Three children (4, 10, and 11 yr) with noncongenital UHL resulting from different causes were enrolled in the study. Intervention After extensive consultation with each family and confirming CI-candidacy, each child received a cochlear implant. Main Outcome Measures Open set speech recognition measures in competing background noise and tests of sound localization were performed for unaided preoperative and CI-aided postimplant intervals after 6 and 12 months. The parent and child versions of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities scale (SSQ) were used for subjective evaluation of hearing at preimplant and 12-month postimplant intervals. Conclusion All children consistently use their CI 1 year postimplant. Our preliminary results suggest binaural hearing benefits for speech understanding in noise, localization ability and subjectively perceived hearing ability for school-aged children with UHL. Trends for CI-benefits in younger preschoolaged children are confirmed through subjective assessment reported by the parents. The benefits in hearing performance suggest binaural integration and processing of electric and acoustic stimulation arriving at 2 different ears is possible for children with UHL.