PubMed · 7572571
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1995. NIH develops consensus statement on cochlear implants.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7572571/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We present a cochlear implant failure previously unidentified and unreported. Following successful implantation and activation of a Cochlear Mini 22 system, a distressing barrage of crackling noises was heard by the patient despite repeated programming with threshold and comfort level adjustment. The implant soon became nonfunctional and integrity testing showed deficient electrical responses and abnormal surface measured wave forms. Investigation of the explant, following reimplantation with an identical system, showed a defective trim capacitor, an electric component of the internal circuit in the stimulator. Paired Student's t-test showed a marginally significant increase (p = 0.047) in effective threshold level and a highly significant decrease (p = 0.0002) in maximum comfort level for the second implant compared to the first implant.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Cambridge Cochlear Implant Programme has so far implanted the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant in 16 profoundly deaf adult patients; there has been a 9-month or longer follow-up period with these patients. We have evaluated these patients by open-set Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) Standard Sentence List testing in two different delivery strategies, live-speaker testing by the same speaker and high-resolution videotaped testing. The performance in lip reading both before and 9 months after implantation has been tested, as well as performance with the implant alone and with the implant in conjunction with lip reading at the 9-month stage. We have compared the performance in these two delivery strategies and have found a significantly better performance in the live-speaker tests that is attributable to slower and perhaps more sympathetic delivery. We have also found evidence of a ceiling effect in the performance of the implant with lip reading in the live-speaker mode and, of greater importance, a floor effect in the performance of the implant alone with the videotaped test. These results and the implications for a complementary role of these two test-delivery modes are discussed.