Impact of Vestibular Schwannoma Management on Cochlear Implant Programming and Outcomes.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Courtney Kolberg, Jamie Bogle, Melissa D DeJong, Nicholas Deep, Peter Weisskopf, James R Dornhoffer, Brian A Neff, Colin L W Driscoll, Matthew L Carlson, Aniket A Saoji
{"title":"Impact of Vestibular Schwannoma Management on Cochlear Implant Programming and Outcomes.","authors":"Courtney Kolberg, Jamie Bogle, Melissa D DeJong, Nicholas Deep, Peter Weisskopf, James R Dornhoffer, Brian A Neff, Colin L W Driscoll, Matthew L Carlson, Aniket A Saoji","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare electrical stimulation and speech perception in vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients across treatment modalities and standard cochlear implant (CI) patients.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary academic center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Sixty-seven CI ears consisting of 23 standard CI controls and 44 VS patients with ipsilateral CI. VS patients were separated by treatment modality: 24 microsurgical resection, 15 radiation therapy, and 5 observation. Eleven VS patients with CI did not receive auditory sensation from electrical stimulation.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>VS microsurgical resection, radiation therapy, and observation.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Threshold (T-levels), comfort (C-levels), consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word score, and AzBio sentence recognition scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients who underwent microsurgical resection required significantly higher (p < 0.001) T-levels and C-levels compared with the standard CI group. Stimulation levels in the VS radiation therapy and observation groups were higher but not significantly different compared with standard CI controls. Overall rate of CI nonstimulation across all VS patients was 25%: 38% for microsurgery and 13% for radiation. Average CNC score for microsurgery group was 18% compared with 44% for radiation, 55% for observation, and 68.5% for standard CI controls. CNC word and AzBio scores were significantly lower (p < 0.001) for the microsurgery group compared with standard CI group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Resection may negatively affect auditory nerve function, leading to higher stimulation levels, increased risk of nonstimulation, and poorer postoperative CI speech outcomes compared with observation or radiosurgery. When medically appropriate, nonsurgical VS management may be used to allow for optimization of CI programming and postoperative hearing outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare electrical stimulation and speech perception in vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients across treatment modalities and standard cochlear implant (CI) patients.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Tertiary academic center.

Patients: Sixty-seven CI ears consisting of 23 standard CI controls and 44 VS patients with ipsilateral CI. VS patients were separated by treatment modality: 24 microsurgical resection, 15 radiation therapy, and 5 observation. Eleven VS patients with CI did not receive auditory sensation from electrical stimulation.

Interventions: VS microsurgical resection, radiation therapy, and observation.

Main outcome measures: Threshold (T-levels), comfort (C-levels), consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word score, and AzBio sentence recognition scores.

Results: Patients who underwent microsurgical resection required significantly higher (p < 0.001) T-levels and C-levels compared with the standard CI group. Stimulation levels in the VS radiation therapy and observation groups were higher but not significantly different compared with standard CI controls. Overall rate of CI nonstimulation across all VS patients was 25%: 38% for microsurgery and 13% for radiation. Average CNC score for microsurgery group was 18% compared with 44% for radiation, 55% for observation, and 68.5% for standard CI controls. CNC word and AzBio scores were significantly lower (p < 0.001) for the microsurgery group compared with standard CI group.

Conclusions: Resection may negatively affect auditory nerve function, leading to higher stimulation levels, increased risk of nonstimulation, and poorer postoperative CI speech outcomes compared with observation or radiosurgery. When medically appropriate, nonsurgical VS management may be used to allow for optimization of CI programming and postoperative hearing outcomes.

前庭神经鞘瘤的处理对人工耳蜗植入计划和结果的影响。
目的:比较不同治疗方式的前庭神经鞘瘤(VS)患者和标准人工耳蜗(CI)患者的电刺激和语言感知。研究设计:回顾性研究。环境:高等教育学术中心。患者:67个CI耳,包括23个标准CI对照和44个同侧CI VS患者。VS患者按治疗方式分类:显微手术切除24例,放射治疗15例,观察5例。11例合并CI的VS患者没有从电刺激中获得听觉。干预措施:VS显微手术切除、放疗、观察。主要结果测量:阈值(t水平)、舒适度(c水平)、辅音-核-辅音(CNC)单词评分和AzBio句子识别评分。结果:与标准CI组相比,接受显微手术切除的患者需要更高的t水平和c水平(p < 0.001)。VS放射治疗组和观察组的刺激水平较高,但与标准CI对照组相比无显著差异。所有VS患者CI非刺激的总体发生率为25%:显微手术为38%,放疗为13%。显微外科组的平均CNC评分为18%,而放射组为44%,观察组为55%,标准CI对照组为68.5%。与标准CI组相比,显微手术组的CNC word和AzBio评分显著降低(p < 0.001)。结论:与观察或放射手术相比,切除可能会对听神经功能产生负面影响,导致更高的刺激水平,增加无刺激的风险,以及更差的术后CI言语结局。在医学上合适的情况下,可以使用非手术VS管理来优化CI规划和术后听力结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信