Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:01:50.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profound deafness treated by the Ineraid multichannel intracochlear implant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

R. F. Gray ,
D. M. Baguley ,
M. ll. Harries ,
I. Court  and
C. Lynch
R. F. Gray*
Affiliation:
East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
D. M. Baguley
Affiliation:
East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
M. ll. Harries
Affiliation:
East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
I. Court
Affiliation:
East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
C. Lynch
Affiliation:
East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
*
R. E Gray, M. A., F.R.C.S., East of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

Twelve deaf adults and two deaf children were treated with the Ineraid (formerly Symbion) four channel intracochlear implant between September 1989 and October 1991 at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. All were post-lingually totally deaf and had found themselves beyond the reach of hearing aids. The effect of the implant upon the patients ability to lip-read was tested with the speech tracking test, BKB sentences (comparable to CID sentences) and Boothroyd word lists (comparable to NU6 word lists). All patients showed an improvement in their ability to understand speech with the help of the implant. Discrimination of speech without lip-reading was tested with Boothroyd word lists and BKB sentences, eight patients (57 per cent) demonstrated some ‘open set’ speech discrimination. The acceptability of the carbon percutaneous pedestal is discussed from the patient's, audiologist's and surgeon's points of view.

Keywords

Cochlear implantSpeech discrimination tests
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 107 , Issue 8 , August 1993 , pp. 673 - 680
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariyasu, L., Galey, F. R., Hilsinger, R., Byl, F. M. (1989) Computergenerated three-dimensional reconstruction of the cochlea. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 100(2): 87–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bench, J., Bamford, J. (eds), (1979) Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Blayney, A.W., Romero Rio, J. A., Williams, K.R., Guilhaume, A., Bagot D'Arc, M., Portmann, M. (1986) Experimental and clinical aspects of carbon as a middle ear prosthesis. Clinical Otolaryngology 11: 189–197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowlard, F.C.Lewis, J.C. (1967) Vitreous carbon—a new form of carbon. Journal of Material Science 2: 507.Google Scholar
Dorman, M.F.Hannley, M.T., Dankowski, K., Smith, L., McCandless, G. (1989) Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion Multichannel Cochlear Implant. Ear and Hearing 10(1): 44–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eddington, D.K., Dobelle, W.H., Brackmann, D.E., Mladejovsky, M.G., Parkin, J.L. (1978) Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 87: (Suppl 53) 1–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gantz, B.J., Tyler, R.S., Knutson, J.E.Woodworth, G., Abbas, P., McCabe, B.E.Hinrichs, J., Tye-Murray, N., Lansing, C.Kuk, E., Brown, C. (1988) Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors performance. Laryngoscope 96 (10): 1100–1106Google Scholar
Gott, V.L., Wiffen, J.D., Dutton, R.C. (1963) Heparin bonding on colloidal graphite surfaces. Science 1297–1298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, R.E.Evans, R.A., Freer, C.D. L., Szutowicz, H.D., Maskell, G.F. (1991) Radiology for cochlear implants. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 105: 1–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimberley, B.P., Lee, A., Scheller, L. (1989) Cochlear implant hearing performance at the University of Minnesota. Journal of Otolaryngology 18 (1): 24–27Google Scholar
Koenig, W. (1949) A new frequency scale for acoustic measurements. Bell Laboratory Record 2: 299.Google Scholar
Linthicum, E H., Fayad, J., Otto, S.R., Galey, E R., House, W.E. (1991) Cochlear implant histopathology. American Journal of Otology 12 (4): 245–311Google ScholarPubMed
Parkin, J.L. (1990) Percutaneous pedestal in cochlear implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 101: 796–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, J.L., Randolph, L.J. (1991) Auditory performance with simultaneous intracochlear multichannel stimulation. Laryngoscope 101: 379–383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrader, M., Jahnke, K. (1989) Vitreous carbon: a new material for middle ear ventilation tubes. Clinical Otolaryngology 15: 355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, W.V., Teague, P.C., Scott, D.L. (1978) Thromboresistance of pyrolytic carbon grafts. Transatlantic American Society of Artificial Internal Organs 223–228Google ScholarPubMed
Teig, E., Lindeman, H.H., Flottorp, O.T., Hanch-Olsen, S., Arntsen, O. (1992) Patient performance with two types of multiple electrode intracochlear implant. Scandinavian Audiology 21 (2): 93–99Google Scholar
Williams, D.E. (1981) Biocompatibility of clinical implant materials, vols I and II, CRC Press, Boca Raton Florida.pp. 262–272Google Scholar
Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C., Lawson, D.T., Wolford, R.D., Eddington, D.K.Rabinowitz, W.M. (1991) Better speech recognition with cochlear implant. Nature 352; 236–238Google Scholar