OBJECTIVES: Electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) combines electric stimulation via a cochlear implant (CI) with residual low-frequency acoustic hearing, with benefits for music appreciation and speech perception in noise. However, many EAS CI users lose residual acoustic hearing, reducing this benefit. The main objectives of this study were to determine whether chronic EAS leads to more hearing loss compared with CI surgery alone in an aged guinea pig model, and to assess the relationship of any hearing loss to histology measures. Conversely, it is also important to understand factors impacting efficacy of electric stimulation. If one contributor to CI-induced hearing loss is damage to the auditory nerve, both acoustic and electric thresholds will be affected. Excitotoxicity from EAS may also affect electric thresholds, while electric stimulation is osteogenic and may increase electrode impedances. Hence, secondary objectives were to assess how electric thresholds are related to the amount of residual hearing loss after CI surgery, and how EAS affects electric thresholds and impedances over time.
DESIGN: Two groups of guinea pigs, aged 9 to 21 months, were implanted with a CI in the left ear. Preoperatively, the animals had a range of hearing losses, as expected for an aged cohort. At 4 weeks after surgery, the EAS group (n = 5) received chronic EAS for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 20 weeks via a tether system that allowed for free movement during stimulation. The nonstimulated group (NS; n = 6) received no EAS over the same timeframe. Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and electrically evoked ABRs (EABRs) were recorded at 3 to 4 week intervals to assess changes in acoustic and electric thresholds over time. At 24 weeks after surgery, cochlear tissue was harvested for histological evaluation, only analyzing animals without electrode extrusions (n = 4 per ear).
RESULTS: Cochlear implantation led to an immediate worsening of ABR thresholds peaking between 3 and 5 weeks after surgery and then recovering and stabilizing by 5 and 8 weeks. Significantly greater ABR threshold shifts were seen in the implanted ears compared with contralateral, non-implanted control ears after surgery. After EAS and termination, no significant additional ABR threshold shifts were seen in the EAS group compared with the NS group. A surprising finding was that NS animals had significantly greater recovery in EABR thresholds over time, with decreases (improvements) of -51.8 ± 33.0 and -39.0 ± 37.3 c.u. at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively, compared with EAS animals with EABR threshold increases (worsening) of +1.0 ± 25.6 and 12.8 ± 44.3 c.u. at 12 and 24 weeks. Impedance changes over time did not differ significantly between groups. After exclusion of cases with electrode extrusion or significant trauma, no significant correlations were seen between ABR and EABR thresholds, or between ABR thresholds with histology measures of inner/outer hair cell counts, synaptic ribbon counts, stria vascularis capillary diameters, or spiral ganglion cell density.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings do not indicate that EAS significantly disrupts acoustic hearing, although the small sample size limits this interpretation. No evidence of associations between hair cell, synaptic ribbon, spiral ganglion cell, or stria vascularis with hearing loss after cochlear implantation was seen when surgical trauma is minimized. In cases of major trauma, both acoustic thresholds and electric thresholds were elevated, which may explain why CI-only outcomes are often better when trauma and hearing loss are minimized. Surprisingly, chronic EAS (or electric stimulation alone) may negatively impact electric thresholds, possibly by prevention of recovery of the auditory nerve after CI surgery. More research is needed to confirm the potentially negative impact of chronic EAS on electric threshold recovery.