Acoustic and Electric Same Ear Hearing in Patients with a Standard Electrode Array

Similar documents
Looking Beyond Speech Perception: SSD

The Benefits of Bimodal Hearing for Adults and Children: Effect of Frequency Region and Acoustic Bandwidth René H. Gifford, PhD

Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation: Benefits of Bilateral Acoustic Hearing

Long-Term Performance for Children with Cochlear Implants

9/13/2017. When to consider CI or BAHA evaluation? Krissa Downey, AuD, CCC A

Cochlear Implant Candidacy Programming Protocol, Adult Ear & Hearing Center for Neurosciences

Combining Residual Hearing with Electric Stimulation: Results from Pediatric & Adult CI Recipients

Hearing Preservation and Speech Outcomes in Pediatric Recipients of Cochlear Implants

Slide 1 REVISITING CANDIDACY: EXPANDING CRITERIA FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANTS. Slide 2. Slide 3. Cochlear Implant History. Cochlear Implant History

Psychosocial Determinants of Quality of Life and CI Outcome in Older Adults

Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness in Children and Adolescents

Allison Biever, Au.D. David C Kelsall, M.D. Eric Lupo, M.D. Judith Stucky, M.A. Rocky Mountain Ear Center/Colorado Neurological Institute

Cochlear Implants 2016: Advances in Technology, Candidacy and Outcomes

DO NOT DUPLICATE. Copyrighted Material

The relationship between electric charge requirements and speech recognition of adult cochlear implant recipients

Cochlear Implants and SSD: Initial Findings With Adults: Implications for Children

Expanded Cochlear Implant Candidacy Guidelines and Technology Advances

Cochlear Implants. What is a Cochlear Implant (CI)? Audiological Rehabilitation SPA 4321

Peter S Roland M.D. UTSouthwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas Developments

Nancy Cambron, Au.D. Chair, VHA Cochlear Implant Advisory Board Department of Veterans Affairs VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington

Effects of Setting Thresholds for the MED- EL Cochlear Implant System in Children

Comparing Speech Perception Abilities of Children with Cochlear Implants and Digital Hearing Aids

Candidacy and Outcomes for CIs and Hybrids. Holly Teagle, AuD, Associate Professor University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Outcomes of Paediatric Cochlear implantation in Single-Sided Deafness or very Asymmetrical Hearing Loss (SSD/AHL)

Cochlear Implantation for Pediatric Patients with Single-Sided Deafness

Implantable Treatments for Different Types of Hearing Loss. Margaret Dillon, AuD Marcia Adunka, AuD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Academic in Confidence data removed

ANNUAL REPORT

Bimodal Devices on Children: A Survey of Clinician Fitting Practices in North America

Multimodal Assessment and Speech Perception Outcomes in Children with Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids

Cochlea Implant and Hearing Aid

Introduction. Performance Outcomes for Borderline Cochlear Implant Candidates. Introduction. Introduction. Introduction.

Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Post-lingual Deafness: The Effects of Age and Duration of Deafness on Post-operative Speech Recognition

Sonia Grewal, Au.D Professional Education Manager Hearing HealthCare Providers 2017 Conference WIDEX CROS & BICROS

Audiology Services. Table of Contents. Audiology Services Guidelines : Hearing services

Upserving vs Upselling. Upserving vs. Upselling: How to help all patients. Expected Incidence of Hearing Loss. Goals for Today. Hearing Loss & Aging

Electro-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) Naída CI Q90 EAS System. Naída CI Q90 EAS System Components. Naída CI Q90 Acoustic Earhook

HOW TO IMPROVE COCHLEAR IMPLANT IN ADULT

Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences. Discovery with delivery as WE BUILD OUR FUTURE

Hearing Screening, Diagnostics and Intervention

Localization Abilities after Cochlear Implantation in Cases of Single-Sided Deafness

HOW TO IMPROVE COCHLEAR IMPLANT IN ADULT

The role of periodicity in the perception of masked speech with simulated and real cochlear implants

Long-term Hearing Preservation Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

Performance over Time on Adults with Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implants DOI: /jaaa

STATE OF THE ART IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: CONCEPTS IN MINIMALLY TRAUMATIC SURGERY!

Advances in Implantable Technologies. Huw Cooper BAA 2014

How to Counsel Hearing Aid Users About Their Prospective Candidacy for a Cochlear Implant

Medical Affairs Policy

Corporate Medical Policy

Fitting of the Hearing System Affects Partial Deafness Cochlear Implant Performance

Cochlear Implants: The Role of the Early Intervention Specialist. Carissa Moeggenberg, MA, CCC-A February 25, 2008

Evidence based selection of hearing aids and features

Op#mizing Hearing Performance with a Wireless Remote Microphone Audio Streaming Accessory

Cognitive and Demographic Predictors of Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Adults with Cochlear Implants

Bilateral Cochlear Implant Guidelines Gavin Morrison St Thomas Hearing Implant Centre London, UK

Hearing the Universal Language: Music and Cochlear Implants

Adunka et al.: Effect of Preoperative Residual Hearing

Maximizing Performance in CI Recipients: Programming Concepts December 3-4, 2017

What is sound? Range of Human Hearing. Sound Waveforms. Speech Acoustics 5/14/2016. The Ear. Threshold of Hearing Weighting

Hearing Evaluation: Diagnostic Approach

Clinical Study The Benefits of Using RONDO and an In-the-Ear Hearing Aid in Patients Using a Combined Electric-Acoustic System

BORDERLINE PATIENTS AND THE BRIDGE BETWEEN HEARING AIDS AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Beyond the Audiogram:

NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Hear Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 December 04.

Self-Assessment of Sound Quality and Hearing Device Satisfaction in Older Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners

Hearing preservation in children using various electrode arrays

Cochlear Implant Corporate Medical Policy

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HEARING LOSS AND HEARING AIDS. Brenda J. Lowe, AuD Arizona Audiology & Hearing

Hearing Loss and Conservation in Industrial Settings

Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory. In un

COCHLEAR NUCLEUS HYBRID HEARING SOLUTION * DESK REFERENCE GUIDE. * Only approved for use with the Nucleus Hybrid L24 Implant

Outcomes in Implanted Teenagers Who Do Not Meet the UK Adult Candidacy Criteria

Paediatric Amplification

Cochlear implants. Aaron G Benson MD Board Certified Otolaryngologist Board Certified Neurotologist

The Effectiveness of a Middle Ear Implant in Some Cochlear Implant Candidates

Cochlear Physiology & Speech Perception

EHDI in Michigan. Introduction. EHDI Goals and Communication Options. Review of EHDI Goals. Effects of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS)

Cochlear Limited Results for the half year ended 31 December 2007

Analysis of the Audio Home Environment of Children with Normal vs. Impaired Hearing

2/16/2012. Fitting Current Amplification Technology on Infants and Children. Preselection Issues & Procedures

The Use of a High Frequency Emphasis Microphone for Musicians Published on Monday, 09 February :50

Jack Noble, PhD, René Gifford, PhD, Benoit Dawant, PhD, and Robert Labadie, MD, PhD

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children identified in newborn hearing screening: Why the rush?

Cochlear Dead Regions Constrain the Benefit of Combining Acoustic Stimulation With Electric Stimulation

Cochlear. Implants What You Need to Know Today. Overview. By Brian Kaplan, M.D. and Mickey Brown

This position is also supported by the following consensus statements:

Ms Melissa Babbage. Senior Audiologist Clinic Manager Dilworth Hearing

Implants. Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Presentation Tips. Becoming Familiar with Cochlear. Implants

Validation Studies. How well does this work??? Speech perception (e.g., Erber & Witt 1977) Early Development... History of the DSL Method

Teaching Hearing Loss Prevention to Students and the Community:

INTRODUCTION TO AUDIOLOGY Hearing Balance Tinnitus - Treatment

Later-amplified NOW Later-amplified THEN Early compared to pre-unhs Delayed onset hearing loss Less hearing loss Mild hearing loss Average age of ID

BRING ON BINAURAL VOICESTREAM TECHNOLOGY The Best Technology for Hearing with Both Ears

Can You Hear Me Now? Learning Objectives 10/9/2013. Hearing Impairment and Deafness in the USA

Can you hear me now? Amanda Wolfe, Au.D. Examining speech intelligibility differences between bilateral and unilateral telephone listening conditions

Is the Referral Pathway a Barrier to Candidacy Evaluation for Cochlear Implantation in Adults with a Postlingual Severe To Profound Hearing Loss?

Interpreting Speech Results to Optimise Hearing aid Fittings

P1 latency in cochlear implant candidates. Peter S Roland MD UT Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas

EVALUATION OF SPEECH PERCEPTION IN PATIENTS WITH SKI SLOPE HEARING LOSS USING ARABIC CONSTANT SPEECH DISCRIMINATION LISTS

Transcription:

Acoustic and Electric Same Ear Hearing in Patients with a Standard Electrode Array Sue Karsten, AuD, Camille Dunn, PhD, Marlan Hansen, MD & Bruce Gantz, MD University of Iowa American Cochlear Implant Alliance, October 16, 215

Disclosures: Disclosure of Financial Relationships: Dr. Gantz is a consultant for Cochlear and Advanced Bionics. Dr. Dunn is a consultant for MED-EL. There are no other disclosures.

Acknowledgements and Special Thanks Research grant 2 P5 DC242 from the National Institutes on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders National Institutes of Health The Lions Clubs International Foundation and the Iowa Lions Foundation Audiologists: Jill Beecher, AuD, CCC-A Christine Etler, AuD, CCC-A Lisa Stille, MA, CCC-A

Subject Gender Demographics Age at Implant (yrs:m) Duration HF S/P HL (yrs) Etiology Pre-op HA Use Electrode Array Duration Implant Use (months) Current # of Active Electrodes P1 M 79:4 19 Noise Bilateral CI24RE 25 2 P2 M 78:11 28 Noise Left only CI422 22 17 P3 M 73: 11 Noise Bilateral CI422 18 19 P4 M 82:5 41 Noise Bilateral CI422 16 14 P5 F 66:6 32 Hereditary Bilateral CI422 12 16 P6 M 47:4 17 Unknown None CI422 8 18 P7 M 78:7 25 Hereditary Bilateral CI422 6 11* & Noise P8 M 66:11 16 Ototoxic Bilateral CI422 6 2 Meds & Chemo P9 F 72:5 12 Hereditary Left only CI422 6 2 P1 M 73:8 18 Noise Bilateral CI422 6 2 P11 F 71:11 5 Noise Bilateral CI422 3 19 P12 M 79:1 19 Unknown Bilateral CI422 3 2 P13 F 7:11 21 Unknown Left only CI422 12 17 P14 F 46:3 37 Unknown Bilateral CI422 6 18 Definitions: HF S/P HL=high-frequency severe-to-profound hearing loss *P7 hit head just prior to initial activation

Considerations: When to Use AC for Standard CI Patients Audiogram If post-operative thresholds are: 125 Hz: 7 db HL 25 Hz: 7 db HL 5 Hz: 7 db HL 75 Hz: 7 db HL Minimum Then: consider using an acoustic component

Considerations: When to Use AC for Standard CI Patients Dexterity and cognitive function of patient (or caregiver who can maintain/trouble-shoot AC) Persistent cerumen issues Out-of-pocket expense for patients Insurance may not cover: post-activation audiograms to monitor residual hearing verification of AC cost of custom earmold/replacement domes replacement of out-of warranty ACs

Considerations: When to Use AC for Standard CI Patients Approximation to prescriptive real-ear targets (NAL-NL2) Soundfield threshold measures should be 3 db HL for AC frequencies Speech recognition measures in clinic Subjective impressions by patient for everyday listening benefit Music appreciation When fit at initial activation, the AC may improve acceptance of the CI device (more natural versus mechanical or raspy quality) Patients who are not progressing with speech recognition abilities

Subject P4 Percent Correct Gender: M Age at Implantation: 82y:5m Duration HF S/P HL: 41y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: 16m Current # Active Electrodes: 14 Electric Frequency Range: 188-7938 Hz 1 8 6 4 2 Hearing Level (db HL) -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (16m) Bimodal (CI+contra HA) Pre HAs Bilateral CI Only Right Ear 16m Only AzBio Sentences (quiet) 1 11 12

Gender: M Age at Implantation: 82y:5m Duration HF S/P HL: 41y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: 16m Current # Active Electrodes: 14 Electric Frequency Range: 563-7938 Hz Percent Correct 1 8 6 4 2 Subject P4-1 Hearing Level (db HL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (16m) Bilateral Right Ear Only Pre HAs 16m 16m (AC) Bilateral Right Ear Only AzBio Sentences (quiet) 1 11 12

Subject P3 Gender: M Age at Implantation: 73y:m Duration HF S/P HL: 11y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: 9m Current # Active Electrodes: 19 Electric Frequency Range: 188-7938 Hz Percent Correct 1 8 6 4 2 Hearing Level (db HL) -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (18m) Bimodal (CI+contra HA) CI Only Bilateral Pre HAs AzBio Sentences (quiet) Right Ear 6m Only 1 11 12

Gender: M Age at Implantation: 73y:m Duration HF S/P HL: 11y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: 9m Current # Active Electrodes: 19 Electric Frequency Range: 688-7938 Hz Percent Correct 1 8 6 4 2 AC Added at 9m Subject P3 Hearing Level (db HL) -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (18m) Bilateral Right Ear Only Pre HAs 6m 12m (AC) 18m (AC) AzBio Sentences (quiet) Bilateral Right Ear Only 1 11 12

Subject P3 Gender: M Age at Implantation: 73y:m Duration HF S/P HL: 11y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: 9m Current # Active Electrodes: 19 Electric Frequency Range: 688-7938 Hz Percent Correct 1 8 6 4 2 18 months Hearing Level (db HL) -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (18m) CI only Hybrid Bimodal Combined Bilateral AzBio Sentences (+5 db SNR) 1 11 12

Subject P1 Gender: M Age at Implantation: 73y:8m Duration HF S/P HL: 18y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: mos Current # Active Electrodes: 2 Electric Frequency Range: 438-7938 Hz -1 1 2 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (6m) Percent Correct 1 8 6 4 2 Combined Hybrid Pre HAs 3m 6m Bilateral Right Ear Only AzBio Sentences (quiet) Hearing Level (db HL) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12

Subject P1 Gender: M Age at Implantation: 73y:8m Duration HF S/P HL: 18y Etiology: Noise Exposure Duration Between IA & Use of AC: mos Current # Active Electrodes: 2 Percent Correct Electric Frequency Range: 438-7938 Hz 1 8 6 4 2 6 months Hearing Level (db HL) -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Implanted Ear Right Pre-op Post-op (6m) CI only Hybrid Bimodal Combined Bilateral AzBio Sentences (+5 db SNR) 1 11 12

Pre-op Audiograms -1 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Hearing Level (db HL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P1 P11 P12 P13 P14 MEAN 1 11 12

Most Current Audiograms -1 Frequency (Hz) 125 25 5 75 1 15 2 3 4 6 8 Hearing Level (db HL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P1 P11 P12 P13 P14 MEAN 1 11 12

1 AzBio Sentences (+5 db SNR) Most Current Scores Percent Correct 8 6 4 CI24RE User Unilateral User 2 P1 (25m) P2 (22m) P3 (18m) P5 (12m) P7 (6m) P8 (6m) P9 (6m) P1 (6m) P11 (3m) P12 (3m) Mean CI Only Hybrid Bimodal Combined m=months post-activation

1 CNC Words Most Current Scores 8 Percent Correct 6 4 2 P1 (25m) P2 (22m) P3 (18m) P5 (12m) P7 (6m) P8 (6m) P9 (6m) P1 (6m) P11 (3m) P12 (3m) Mean CI Only Hybrid Bimodal Combined m=months post-activation

Rating 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P1 P2 P3 P5 P7 (25m) (22m) (18m) (12m) (6m) (6m) (6m) (6m) (3m) (3m) RT JD JT AM RD EB BN LH SG NF Mean Without AC Subjective With AC Does your own voice, other people s voices, and everyday sounds seem clear and natural? Scale: = not at all (minimum) - 1 perfectly (maximum) P8 P9 P1 P11 P12 Mean

Localization in Quiet (Front-Facing) 1 8 Total RMS Error 6 4 2 P2 (22m) P3 (18m) P5 (12m) P7 (6m) P8 (6m) P1 (3m) P12 (3m) Mean JD JT AM RD EB LH NF Bimodal Combined m=months post-activation

Conclusion Preliminary speech recognition data show that patients with a standard electrode array who have various levels of low-frequency acoustic hearing can benefit from the combination of acoustic and electric hearing in the same ear Even if a patient was initially activated using a full frequency range (i.e. 188-7938 Hz), the clinician should consider trying an acoustic component if a patient has residual low frequency hearing and demonstrates lack of progress with speech recognition or sound quality issues Preliminary results suggest that patients generally report better subjective ratings when using an acoustic component with CI compared to cochlear implant alone Further investigation is warranted to determine when to use an acoustic component in an ear implanted with a standard electrode array when functional acoustic hearing has been maintained versus cochlear implant alone