PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14502072

Update on bilateral cochlear implantation.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Providing a unilateral cochlear implant in a patient with a profound bilateral hearing loss has now been a standard clinical practice for more than a decade. Although results are often very good, normal hearing has not been restored. One exciting opportunity to improve hearing in this population is to provide a second implant. However, it is not obvious that bilateral electrical stimulation can be integrated by the central nervous system. This article describes binaural hearing and reviews currently published articles on binaural cochlear implants. RECENT FINDINGS: Controlled laboratory trials have focused on distinguishing different categories of potential binaural advantages. A potential summation effect occurs when the same stimulus is available at two ears. Listening in noise with two ears should be better than listening with one ear when the additional ear is away from the noise. This head shadow benefit results from acoustic effects, not physiologic ones. When the second ear is added near the noise source, a binaural squelch benefit can occur, requiring neural integration from both sides. Finally, two ears may improve sound localization. Binaural implantees generally benefit from head shadow effects. Only some benefit from summation and squelch effects. Most, but not all, show improved horizontal plane localization. SUMMARY: It is now appropriate to begin experimental studies of binaural cochlear implants. Preliminary results show promise to improve head shadow, a physical advantage, and sound localization. Some benefits have been observed for improved summation and squelch. These findings have demonstrated that the brain can integrate electrical stimulation from the two ears. Future studies will be required to maximize this binaural hearing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard S Tyler, Camille C Dunn, Shelley A Witt, John P Preece. 2003. Update on bilateral cochlear implantation.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00020840-200310000-00014

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral deep brain stimulators.

OBJECTIVE: We report the case of a patient successfully implanted with a Nucleus Contour cochlear implant after placement of a deep brain stimulator for Parkinson disease. METHODS: The authors conducted a case report and literature review. RESULTS: Successful hookup and mapping of the device was performed 1 month after implantation without evidence of aberrant activity of the deep brain stimulators. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of successful implantation of both a cochlear implant and a deep brain stimulator in the same patient. We have outlined one approach to avoiding detrimental interactions between cochlear implant and deep brain stimulator devices.

Cochlear Implantation↗

[Measurement of skull thickness by ultrasound].

BACKGROUND: The presurgical diagnostic for measurement of skull thickness for implantations of epithesis or bone anchored hearing aids is limited on computed tomography (CT) of petrosal bone up to now. Testing of ultrasound for measurement of skull thickness is the aim of our study . MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 patients has been included, which had got a computed tomography of nasal sinus, skull or petrosal bone. The potential localisations of implantations have been measured by 3D-reconstruction of computed tomography. The results have been statistical compared by sonographic investigations (7.5 MHz Soundhead) at the same localisation. RESULTS: The mean skull thickness has been 5,2 mm in computed tomography. Comparison has described a mean skull thickness of 4,2 mm in sonography. Statistical comparison has shown that ultrasound has been measured statistical significant too small. CONCLUSIONS: The skull thickness can be described and measured by sonography. However mean skull thickness has been measured statistical significant too small. In spite of this, conclusions relating to presurgical diagnostic, for instance for the implantation of epithesis and bone anchored hearing aids, can be drawn by sonographic data.

Cochlear Implantation↗

Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: Criteria for paediatric cochlear implant candidacy continue to evolve, as research indicates an increasingly broad range of children for whom the procedure can produce benefit. Children with difficulties in addition to their deafness, or global developmental delay, are not routinely excluded. The aim of this study is to explore the association between developmental delay in young paediatric cochlear implant candidates and progress with the device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a retrospective case series analysis of 32 children, aged between 1.2 and 2.8 years at pre-implant assessment. Children were assessed using the Schedule of Growing Skills II and IT-MAIS before implantation. Progress in speech perception and Speech Intelligibility was monitored using the E2L toy test and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR), respectively, 1 and 2 years after switch-on. RESULTS: Data were subjected to regression analyses, with either the E2L or SIR as the outcome variables, and variables derived from the Schedule of Growing Skills II (general development and cognitive functioning), IT-MAIS, age at switch-on and average aided hearing loss pre-implant as the predictor variables. In each analysis the strongest (and statistically significant) predictors of speech perception and Speech Intelligibility were the measures of general development and cognitive functioning, accounting for around 40% of the variance in outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study indicates the value of routinely assessing the general development of young paediatric cochlear implant candidates, as part of the pre-implant decision-making process. Significant developmental delay is predictive of poor outcomes, but children with a mild delay do make appreciable progress. Developmental assessment of young deaf children is therefore important in terms of candidacy decisions and counselling parents regarding potential benefit from a cochlear implant.

Cochlear Implantation↗