Improved Cochlear Implant Performance Estimation Using Tonotopic-Based Electrocochleography

Abstract

ImportanceCochlear implantation produces remarkable results in postlingual deafness, although auditory outcomes vary. Electrocochleography (ECochG) has emerged as a valuable tool for assessing the cochlear-neural substrate and evaluating patient prognosis.ObjectiveTo assess whether ECochG-total response (ECochG-TR) recorded at the best-frequency electrode (BF-ECochG-TR) correlates more strongly with speech perception performance than ECochG-TR measured at the round window (RW-ECochG-TR).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis single-center cross-sectional study recruited 142 patients from July 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022, with 1-year follow-up. Exclusions included perilymph suctioning, crimped sound delivery tubes, non–native English speakers, inner ear malformations, nonpatent external auditory canals, or cochlear implantation revision surgery.ExposuresCochlear implantation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSpeech perception testing, including the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words test, AzBio sentences in quiet, and AzBio sentences in noise plus 10-dB signal to noise ratio (with low scores indicating poor performance and high scores indicating excellent performance on all tests), at 6 months postoperatively; and RW-ECochG-TR and BF-ECochG-TR (measured for 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz).ResultsA total of 109 of the 142 eligible postlingual adults (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [15.8] years; 67 [61.5%] male) were included in the study. Both BF-ECochG-TR and RW-ECochG-TR were correlated with 6-month CNC scores (BF-ECochG-TR: r = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.82; RW-ECochG-TR: r = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76). A multivariate model incorporating age, duration of hearing loss, and angular insertion depth did not outperform BF-ECochG-TR or RW-ECochG-TR alone. The BF-ECochG-TR correlation with CNC scores was significantly stronger than the RW-ECochG-TR correlation (r difference = −0.18; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.01; z = −2.02). More moderate correlations existed between 6-month AzBio scores in noise, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores (r = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.60), and BF-ECochG-TR (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58). MoCA and the interaction between BF-ECochG-TR and MoCA accounted for a substantial proportion of variability in AzBio scores in noise at 6 months (R2 = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.61).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this case series, BF-ECochG-TR was identified as having a stronger correlation with cochlear implantation performance than RW-ECochG-TR, although both measures highlight the critical role of the cochlear-neural substrate on outcomes. Demographic, audiologic, and surgical factors demonstrated weak correlations with cochlear implantation performance, and performance in noise was found to require a robust cochlear-neural substrate (BF-ECochG-TR) as well as sufficient cognitive capacity (MoCA). Future cochlear implantation studies should consider these variables when assessing performance and related interventions.