New Criteria of Indication and Selection of Patients to Cochlear Implant

Abstract

Numerous changes continue to occur in cochlear implant candidacy. In general, these have been accompanied by concomitant and satisfactory changes in surgical techniques. Together, this has advanced the utility and safety of cochlear implantation. Most devices are now approved for use in patients with severe to profound unilateral hearing loss rather then the prior requirement of a bilateral profound loss. Furthermore, studies have begun utilizing short electrode arrays for shallow insertion in patients with considerable low-frequency residual hearing. This technique will allow the recipient to continue to use acoustically amplified hearing for the low frequencies simultaneously with a cochlear implant for the high frequencies. The advances in design of, and indications for, cochlear implants have been matched by improvements in surgical techniques and decrease in complications. The resulting improvements in safety and efficacy have further encouraged the use of these devices. This paper will review the new concepts in the candidacy of cochlear implant. Medline data base was used to search articles dealing with the following topics: cochlear implant in younger children, cochlear implant and hearing preservation, cochlear implant for unilateral deafness and tinnitus, genetic hearing loss and cochlear implant, bilateral cochlear implant, neuropathy and cochlear implant and neural plasticity, and the selection of patients for cochlear implant.

The effects of spectral smearing and elevated thresholds on speech-in-noise recognition in simulated electric-acoustic hearing

“…Since the approval of a single channel cochlear implant by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1984, significant progress has been made in cochlear implant technology and candidacy criteria (Sampaio, Araújo, & Oliveira, 2011;Wilson, Lawson, Müller, Tyler, & Kiefer, 2003). One of the major advances in candidacy criteria is that individuals with increasing levels of residual hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation (Sampaio et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2003).…”

“…One of the major advances in candidacy criteria is that individuals with increasing levels of residual hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation (Sampaio et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2003). This expansion of candidacy criteria has gone hand in hand with the improved performance outcomes achieved by cochlear implant recipients.…”

Effectiveness of Frequency-Lowering Hearing Aids and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant for Treating People with a Severe-To-Profound High-Frequency Hearing Loss

“…Instead of shifting high frequencies to a lower frequency range, as it is done by FL HAs, the EAS implant uses electrical stimulation to convey highfrequency information. This technological advance, along with new electrode designs, improvements in surgical techniques and a reduction of implantation related risks opened the door of cochlear implantation to people with a specific severe-toprofound HFHL [7,8]. Thus, those persons have nowadays access to a few technological alternatives to conventional HAs.…”

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

“…C ochlear implantation criteria currently include individuals who have aidable hearing-that is, bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (HL) across the speech frequencies 250-8000 Hz (Carlson et al, 2015;Gifford, Dorman, Shallop, & Sydlowski, 2010;HemanAckah, Roland, Haynes, & Waltzman, 2012;Sampaio, Araújo, & Oliveira, 2011). Cochlear implantation has led to significant improvements over preimplantation amplification for many individuals, including providing improved open set recognition (Carlson et al, 2015;Firszt, Holden, Reeder, Cowdrey, & King, 2012;Gifford et al, 2010).…”