AUTHOR=Weinmann Charlotte , Baumann Uwe , Leinung Martin , Stöver Timo , Helbig Silke
TITLE=Vertigo Associated With Cochlear Implant Surgery: Correlation With Vertigo Diagnostic Result, Electrode Carrier, and Insertion Angle
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Neurology
VOLUME=12
YEAR=2021
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.663386
DOI=10.3389/fneur.2021.663386
ISSN=1664-2295
ABSTRACT=Objective: Vertigo is a common side effect of cochlear implant (CI) treatment. This prospective study examines the incidence of postoperative vertigo over time and aims to analyze influencing factors such as electrode design and insertion angle (IA).
Study Design and Setting: This is a prospective study which has been conducted at a tertiary referral center (academic hospital).
Patients: A total of 29 adults were enrolled and received a unilateral CI using one of six different electrode carriers, which were categorized into “structure-preserving” (I), “potentially structure-preserving” (II), and “not structure-preserving” (III).
Intervention: Subjective vertigo was assessed by questionnaires at five different time-points before up to 6 months after surgery. The participants were divided into four groups depending on the time of the presence of vertigo before and after surgery. Preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively, a comprehensive vertigo diagnosis consisting of Romberg test, Unterberger test, subjective visual vertical, optokinetic test, video head impulse test, and caloric irrigation test was performed. In addition, the IA was determined, and the patients were divided in two groups (<430°; ≥430°).
Main Outcome Measures: The incidence of vertigo after CI surgery (group 1) was reported, as well as the correlation of subjective vertigo with electrode array categories (I–III) and IA.
Results: Among the participants, 45.8% experienced new vertigo after implantation. Based on the questionnaire data, a vestibular origin was suspected in 72.7%. The results did not show a significant correlation with subjective vertigo for any of the performed tests. In group 1 with postoperative vertigo, 18% of patients showed conspicuous results in a quantitative analysis of caloric irrigation test despite the fact that the category I or II electrodes were implanted, which are suitable for structure preservation. Average IA was 404° for the overall group and 409° for group 1. There was no statistically significant correlation between IA and perceived vertigo.
Conclusions: Though vertigo after CI surgery seems to be a common complication, the test battery used here could not objectify the symptoms. Further studies should clarify whether this is due to the multifactorial cause of vertigo or to the lack of sensitivity of the tests currently in use. The proof of reduced probability for vertigo when using atraumatic electrode carrier was not successful, nor was the proof of a negative influence of the insertion depth.