Various devices have been developed to overcome the widespread phenomenon of different degrees of hearing deficits between mild and profound hearing loss. Basically, we differentiate between acoustic stimulation (hearing aids), restricted to cases with a partially functioning cochlear receptor, and electrical stimulation (cochlear implants), stimulating the auditory nerve directly in cases with profound or total hearing loss. For the first time, animal data have been collected that indicate the possibility of nearly interference-free use of both stimulation types simultaneously. In addition, we have gathered the first clinical patient experience, which confirms the encouraging results. Future implications for patients with severe high-frequency hearing loss are discussed.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Scala vestibuli insertion in cochlear implantation: a valuable alternative for cases with obstructed scala tympani.

Insertion of a sufficient number of electrodes is important for a successful use of cochlear implants. We investigated the results of scala vestibuli insertion for cochlear implantation in cases of obstructed scala tympani. In a series of 200 cochlear implantations, scala vestibuli insertion was successfully performed in 4 cases with obstruction of the scala tympani. Etiologies included a temporal bone fracture, severe otosclerosis and malformations of the cochlea. The maximum insertion depth obtained via the scala vestibuli was 30 mm. Postoperative results were comparable to patients in whom conventional scala tympani insertion was performed. No adverse effects related to the site of insertion were observed. Scala vestibuli insertion offers a valuable alternative in cases of obstructed scala tympani that can be employed for a variety of etiologies.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of the TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor and the cis pro+ body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users.

A study was conducted to compare the new MED-EL TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor with the CIS PRO+ body-worn processor in the COMBI 40/COMBI 40+ implant system. Speech tests were performed in 46 experienced subjects in two test sessions approximately 4 weeks apart. Subjects were switched over from the CIS PRO+ to the TEMPO+ in the first session and used only the TEMPO+ in the time between the two sessions. Speech tests included monosyllabic word tests and sentence tests via the telephone. An adaptive noise method was used to adjust each subject's scores to approximately 50%. Additionally, subjects had to complete a questionnaire based on their 4 weeks of experience with the TEMPO+. The speech test results showed a statistically significant improvement in the monosyllabic word scores with the TEMPO+. In addition, in the second session, subjects showed a significant improvement when using the telephone with the TEMPO+, indicating some learning in this task. In the questionnaire, the vast majority of subjects found that the TEMPO+ allows equal or better speech understanding and rated the sound quality of the TEMPO+ higher. All these objective and subjective results indicate the superiority of the TEMPO+ and are mainly attributed to a new coding strategy called CIS+ and its implementation in the TEMPO+. In other words, based on the results of this study, it appears that after switching over from the CIS PRO+ to the TEMPO+, subjects are able to maintain or even improve their own speech understanding capability.

Adult↗