Cochlear Implantation After Labyrinthectomy or a Translabyrinthine Surgical Approach

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02309099
• Recruitment Status: Completed
• First Posted: December 5, 2014
• Results First Posted: December 10, 2018
• Last Update Posted: January 7, 2019
• Sponsor: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• Collaborator: Med-El Corporation
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Study Description

Brief Summary:

The goal of this project is to determine whether subjects who have undergone labyrinthectomy or a translabyrinthine surgical approach as the treatment for vestibular schwannoma or Meniere's disease benefit from cochlear implantation on speech perception and localization tasks.

If the auditory nerve is able to transmit this signal effectively, then these two populations may be able to utilize the combination of electric (in the affected ear) and acoustic (in the non-affected ear) information for improved speech perception in noise and localization as reportedly experienced in other unilateral sensorineural hearing loss populations.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Unilateral Acoustic Neuroma; Meniere's Disease	Device: Cochlear Implant	Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

The treatment for cases of vestibular schwannoma or Meniere's disease may require a translabyrinthine surgical approach. This surgical approach results in a complete loss of hearing in the surgical ear, leaving the patient with a unilateral hearing loss. Though assistive hearing technologies exist to route signals from the poorer hearing ear to the better hearing ear, affected patients continue to have limitations with localization and speech perception in noise. An alternative hearing device is a cochlear implant, which would provide the signal to the affected ear. This could potentially offer binaural cues, thus improving localization and speech perception in noise. Since the surgical procedures for a translabyrinthine approach parallel those for cochlear implantation, insertion of the cochlear implant could occur within the same surgery.

A vestibular schwannoma is a benign tumor on cranial nerve VIII that affects the vestibular and auditory systems. Hearing loss on the side of the vestibular schwannoma may result from degeneration of hair cells and spiral ganglia or growth of the schwannoma into the cochlear space. Treatment options include observation from routine imaging, radiation therapy, or surgical removal of the tumor. Despite treatment for the vestibular schwannoma, auditory sensitivity may be further reduced on the affected side as a result of the radiation therapy or compromises to the inner ear or cranial nerve VIII from surgical removal. Thus, in cases of unilateral vestibular schwannoma the patient is often left with a unilateral profound hearing loss.

Patients who are scheduled to undergo labyrinthectomy for intractable Meniere's disease are a second population with resulting unilateral profound hearing loss. These patients typically have non-functional hearing on the affected ear prior to the procedure. The main indication for the surgery is intractable vertigo and thus the loss of already non-functional hearing is typically well accepted.

Though hearing on the contralateral ear may be within normal limits, unilateral hearing loss is known to result in reduced speech perception in noise, variable abilities on localization tasks, increased report of hearing handicap, and reduced quality of life. Due to the severity of the hearing loss, these patient populations cannot utilize conventional amplification that would offer auditory input to the affected ear. The current hearing device options for this patient population include contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids and bone-conduction devices. With a CROS hearing aid, a microphone positioned near the affected ear picks up the signal and sends it to a hearing aid placed on the contralateral ear to present the signal to the unaffected side. Bone-conduction devices transmit the signal from the affected ear to the contralateral ear via transcutaneous vibrations. Though CROS hearing aids and bone-conduction devices provide the patient with auditory information from both sides, the ability to use binaural cues for localization and speech perception in noise is variable.

It is of interest as to the potential benefit of cochlear implantation in these populations considering the profound hearing loss resulting from surgical intervention. A cochlear implant is a two-part system, including the internal electrode array and external speech processor. The internal electrode array is surgically implanted into the affected cochlea. The external speech processor receives sounds and transmits this signal to the internal portion. The electrode array presents the signal via electrical pulses within the cochlear space, which is interpreted by the brain as sound.

Cochlear implantation has been reported as a viable treatment option in other cases of unilateral hearing loss, including sudden sensorineural hearing loss, and severe tinnitus. Further, cochlear implantation has been shown to offer superior speech perception in noise, localization abilities, and subjective report in cases of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss as compared to CROS hearing aids and bone-conduction devices.

There is limited evidence as to the success of cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral profound hearing loss resulting from vestibular schwannoma. One study reported variable speech perception outcomes in five cochlear implant recipients with a history of vestibular schwannoma due to neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) or sporadic growth. Limitations of this study are the subjects underwent a range of treatments prior to cochlear implantation and the cases reviewed had profound hearing loss in both ears. A second study reported on a case study of unilateral vestibular schwannoma removal and simultaneous cochlear implantation. This subject reportedly experienced an improvement in speech perception abilities and quality of life postoperatively. Determining the preferred treatment option for patients suffering from unilateral vestibular schwannoma is still needed.

Further, there is limited evidence of the preferred treatment option for patients suffering from unilateral profound hearing loss after undergoing a labyrinthectomy for intractable Meniere's disease. One study reported on a patient who underwent bilateral labyrinthectomies for Meniere's disease. They reported an improvement in speech perception abilities and subjective benefit; however, there was a delay between the two surgeries. Allowing for a waiting period between the two surgeries is not ideal as cochlear ossification may occur, limiting the ability to successfully insert the electrode array. Another study also reported successful outcomes from cochlear implantation in subjects with bilateral Meniere's disease. However, there is no published report investigating whether cochlear implantation improves speech perception and/or localization abilities in unilateral cases of Meniere's disease.

The goal of this project is to determine whether subjects who have undergone labyrinthectomy or a translabyrinthine surgical approach as the treatment for vestibular schwannoma or Meniere's disease benefit from cochlear implantation on speech perception and localization tasks. If the auditory nerve is able to transmit this signal effectively, then these two populations may be able to utilize the combination of electric (in the affected ear) and acoustic (in the non-affected ear) information for improved speech perception in noise and localization as reportedly experienced in other unilateral sensorineural hearing loss populations.

Study Design

• Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial)
• Actual Enrollment: 10 participants
• Allocation: N/A
• Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)
• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Official Title: Cochlear Implantation After Labyrinthectomy or a Translabyrinthine Surgical Approach
• Actual Study Start Date: November 2014
• Actual Primary Completion Date: November 8, 2017
• Actual Study Completion Date: November 8, 2017

Arms and Interventions

Arm	Intervention/treatment
Experimental: Cochlear Implant; Cochlear implantation of the affected ear	Device: Cochlear Implant; Cochlear implantation used a treatment for single-sided deafness resultant of labyrinthectomy or a translabyrinthine surgical approach; Other Names: MED-EL CONCERT cochlear implant system; MED-EL SYNCHRONY cochlear implant system

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Change in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set word understanding. Recorded CNC Words lists were presented to the participant while listening to the cochlear implant alone and contralateral ear plugged/masked. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct. A higher score is better.
2. Change in Arizona Biomedical Institute (AzBio) Sentences in Quiet Scores Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with no background noise present. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct. A higher score is better.
3. Change in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0N0) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 decibel signal-to-noise ratio (dB SNR). Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech and noise were colocated in this condition (S0N0). Resultant score is a percentage of words correct. A higher score is better.
4. Change in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0NCI) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 dB SNR. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the implanted side in this condition (S0NCI). Resultant score is a percentage of words correct. A higher score is better.
5. Change in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0NContra) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 dB SNR. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the contralateral ear in this condition (S0NContra). Resultant score is a percentage of words correct. A higher score is better.
6. Change in Bamford-Kowal-Bench-Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) Scores (S0N0) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech and noise were colocated in this condition (S0N0). Resultant score is the signal-to-noise ratio in decibels (dB SNR) at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct. A lower score is better.
7. Change in BKB-SIN Scores (S0NCI) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the implanted side in this condition (S0NCI). Resultant score is the signal-to-noise ratio at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct. A lower score is better.
8. Change in BKB-SIN Scores (S0NContra) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the contralateral ear in this condition (S0NContra). Resultant score is the signal-to-noise ratio at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct. A lower score is better.
9. Change in Localization Root-mean-squared (RMS) Error Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Participants identified a speech-shaped noise source presented at various presentation levels within an 11-speaker array. Participants localized the sound source with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. The RMS error (degrees) was estimated; a lower degree is more accurate/better localization of the sound source.
10. Change in Reported Subjective Benefit on the Speech Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) Scale Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
    Participants reported subjective device benefit when hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. Participants based their report on daily listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant.
11. Change in Reported Subjective Benefit on the Spatial Domain of the SSQ Scale Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
    Participants reported subjective device benefit for the directional, distance, and movement components of spatial hearing by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. Participants based their report on daily listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant.
12. Change in Reported Subjective Benefit on the Qualities of Hearing Domain of the SSQ Scale Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
    Participants reported subjective device benefit in qualities of hearing (including ease of listening and the naturalness, clarity, and identifiability of different sounds) by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. Participants based their report on daily listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant.
13. Change in Reported Subjective Difficulty Frequency on the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
    Participants reported frequency of subjective difficulty in specific listening situations. Participants based their report on daily listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open. The score is percentage of how frequently participants experience difficulty in specific listening situations, ranging from 1% (Never) to 99% (Always). A lower global score is less reported difficulty frequency by the participant.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Difference in AzBio Sentences in Quiet Scores With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with no background noise present. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech and noise were collocated in this condition. Resultant score is a difference in mean percentage of words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a positive difference translates to a higher score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a negative difference translates to a lower score with the cochlear implant on.
2. Difference in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0N0) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 dB SNR. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech and noise were colocated in this condition (S0N0). Resultant score is a difference in the mean percentage of words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a positive score translates to a higher score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a negative difference translates to a lower difference with the cochlear implant on.
3. Difference in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0NCI) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 dB SNR. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the implanted side in this condition (S0NCI). Resultant score is a difference in mean percentage of words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a positive difference translates to a higher score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a negative difference translates to a lower score with the cochlear implant on.
4. Difference in AzBio Sentences in Noise Scores (S0NContra) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at 0 dB SNR. Recorded AzBio Sentences lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the contralateral ear in this condition (S0NContra). Resultant score is a difference in mean percentage of words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a positive difference translates to a higher score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a negative difference translates to a lower score with the cochlear implant on.
5. Difference in BKB-SIN Scores (S0N0) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech and noise were colocated in this condition (S0N0). Resultant score is a difference in the mean signal-to-noise ratio at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a negative difference translates to a better score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a positive difference translates to a worse score with the cochlear implant on.
6. Difference in BKB-SIN Scores (S0NCI) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the implanted side in this condition (S0NCI). Resultant score is a difference in the mean signal-to-noise ratio at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a negative difference translates to a better score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a positive difference translates to a worse score with the cochlear implant on.
7. Difference in BKB-SIN Scores (S0NContra) With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Testing open-set sentence understanding with concurrent background noise present at various levels. Recorded BKB-SIN lists were presented to the participant while listening with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone; the speech was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and noise to the contralateral ear in this condition (S0NContra). Resultant score is a difference in the mean signal-to-noise ratio at which the participant scores 50% of the target words correct between cochlear implant on versus off; a negative difference translates to a better score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a positive difference translates to a worse score with the cochlear implant on.
8. Difference in Localization RMS Error With the Cochlear Implant on (Plus Contralateral Ear Open) Versus Off (Contralateral Ear Alone) Over Time [ Time Frame: Intervals within the first 12 months of device use ]
   Participants identified a speech-shaped noise source presented at various presentation levels within an 11-speaker array. Participants localized the sound source with the cochlear implant on and contralateral ear open and also while listening with the cochlear implant off/contralateral ear alone. The RMS error (degrees) was estimated; a lower degree is more accurate/better localization of the sound source. The resultant score reported here is a difference in mean RMS error between cochlear implant on versus off; a negative difference translates to a better score with the cochlear implant on, whereas a positive difference translates to a worse score with the cochlear implant on.

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years to 99 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
• Sexes Eligible for Study: All
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure that will result in profound hearing loss in the surgical ear [unilateral vestibular schwannoma wtih planned translabyrinthine surgery or unilateral Meniere's disease with planned labyrinthectomy] [diagnosed by UNC investigators]
2. Pure-tone average (PTA) less than or equal to 35 decibels Hearing Level (dB HL) in the contralateral ear [no evidence of retrocochlear dysfunction]
3. Unaided consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words score greater than or equal to 80% in the contralateral ear
4. Greater than 18 years of age at implantation
5. Realistic expectations
6. Willing to obtain appropriate meningitis vaccinations
7. No reported cognitive issues [pass the Mini Mental State Examination screener]
8. Able and willing to comply with study requirements, including travel to investigational site
9. Obtain Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended meningitis vaccinations prior to surgery

Exclusion Criteria:

1. History of implantable technology in either ear, such as a bone-conduction implant
2. Non-native English speaker [speech perception materials presented in English]
3. Inability to participate in follow-up procedures (unwillingness, geographic location)

Contacts and Locations

Locations

United States, North Carolina

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States, 27517

Sponsors and Collaborators

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Med-El Corporation

Investigators

• Principal Investigator: Kevin Brown, MD, PhD; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:

Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan  [PDF] May 25, 2015

More Information

Publications:

Lustig LR, Yeagle J, Niparko JK, Minor LB. Cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral Ménière's syndrome. Otol Neurotol. 2003 May;24(3):397-403.

Osborn HA, Yeung R, Lin VY. Delayed cochlear implantation after surgical labyrinthectomy. J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Jan;126(1):63-5. doi: 10.1017/S0022215111002374. Epub 2011 Sep 14.

Pai I, Dhar V, Kelleher C, Nunn T, Connor S, Jiang D, O'Connor AF. Cochlear implantation in patients with vestibular schwannoma: a single United Kingdom center experience. Laryngoscope. 2013 Aug;123(8):2019-23. doi: 10.1002/lary.24056. Epub 2013 Apr 24.

Wareing MJ, O'Connor AF. The role of labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation in Menière's disease. Ear Nose Throat J. 1997 Sep;76(9):664-6, 668, 671-2. Review.

Zanetti D, Campovecchi CB, Pasini S, Nassif N. Simultaneous translabyrinthine removal of acoustic neuroma and cochlear implantation. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2008 Dec;35(4):562-8. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2007.11.011. Epub 2008 Feb 19.

• Responsible Party: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02309099
• Other Study ID Numbers: 14-1818
• First Posted: December 5, 2014
• Results First Posted: December 10, 2018
• Last Update Posted: January 7, 2019
• Last Verified: January 2018

Keywords provided by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:

Acoustic Neuroma; Vestibular Schwannoma; Meniere's Disease

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Neuroma; Neuroma, Acoustic; Meniere Disease; Nerve Sheath Neoplasms; Neoplasms, Nerve Tissue; Neoplasms by Histologic Type; Neoplasms; Endolymphatic Hydrops; Labyrinth Diseases; Ear Diseases; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; Neurilemmoma; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Neuroectodermal Tumors; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Cranial Nerve Neoplasms; Nervous System Neoplasms; Neoplasms by Site; Peripheral Nervous System Neoplasms; Vestibulocochlear Nerve Diseases; Retrocochlear Diseases; Otorhinolaryngologic Neoplasms; Cranial Nerve Diseases; Nervous System Diseases