Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients

Wesarg, Thomas; Wąsowski, Arkadiusz; Skarżyńśki, Henryk; Ramos, Ángel; González, J. Segura; Kyriafinis, Georgios; Junge, Friederike; Novakovich, Allan; Mauch, Herbert; Laszig, Roland

doi:10.3109/00016489.2010.492480

Cited by 72 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results corroborate other studies in the literature (12,13,15,16,23) , which also did not find differences in audiometry performed in both programming situations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Other studies (12,13,15,16,23) also did not show differences in the results of speech perception tests in both programming situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The randomization was performed carefully to avoid bias in the results, which could be caused by fatigue of the participants throughout the tests. It should be noted that three studies (12,15,16) also mentioned that the participants were randomized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies related to the RP of CI systems found in the literature evaluated the differences in the stimulation levels (15) , auditory thresholds, and speech perception in RP and LP (12,13,16,23) and also assessed the opinion of professionals and participants (5,12,14,16,23) . Caption: LP = direct programming; RP = remote programming; Min = minimum; Max = maximum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wesarg et al (15) conducted a study to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, risks, and benefits comparing the RP and LP, using commercial software for video conferencing and remote control for programming the CI. The authors invited 70 CI users to participate in the RP and LP, randomly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Remote programming of cochlear implants

Samuel

Goffi-Gómez

Bittencourt

et al. 2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DescritoresThe RP is a simple and effective procedure for programming cochlear implant devices and, although there were differences in the stimulation levels of some electrodes, it did not interfere in the speech perception outcomes. RESUMOObjetivo: verificar a efetividade da programação remota do implante coclear por meio dos níveis de estimulação e resultados nos testes de percepção de fala e audiometria em campo livre. Métodos: Foram selecionados 12 pacientes de ambos os gêneros, com idade entre 18 e 59 anos, usuários de implante coclear do mesmo modelo de unidade interna e processador de fala por no mínimo 12 meses. As programações remota (PR) e presencial (PP) foram realizadas no mesmo dia, medindo-se os níveis mínimos (níveis T) e máximos (níveis C) de estimulação de cinco eletrodos, com interpolação dos demais. Foram aplicados testes de percepção de fala (frases em contexto aberto e monossílabos -gravação a 65 dBNPS) e audiometria em campo livre nas frequências de 250 a 8.000 Hz.Os resultados foram comparados entre PR e PP. Resultados: Houve diferença na média dos níveis T em três eletrodos e dos níveis C em um eletrodo. Não houve diferença entre os resultados obtidos nos testes de percepção de fala e nos limiares audiométricos na PP e PR. Conclusão: A realização da programação remota é simples e eficaz para a programação dos dispositivos de implante coclear e, embora tenha mostrado diferenças nos níveis de estimulação, não interferiu no desempenho da percepção de fala.

show abstract

“…These results corroborate other studies in the literature (12,13,15,16,23) , which also did not find differences in audiometry performed in both programming situations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Other studies (12,13,15,16,23) also did not show differences in the results of speech perception tests in both programming situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Remote programming of cochlear implants

Samuel

Goffi-Gómez

Bittencourt

et al. 2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care

Gonçalves‐Bradley

Maria

Ricci‐Cabello

et al. 2020

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Novel Performance‐Based Paradigm of Care for Cochlear Implant Follow‐Up

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Utilize a multi-institutional outcomes database to determine expected performance for adult cochlear implant (CI) users. Estimate the percentage of patients who are high performers and achieve performance plateau.Study Design: Retrospective database study. Methods: Outcomes from 9,448 implantations were mined to identify 804 adult, unilateral recipients who had one preoperative and at least one postoperative consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word score. Results were examined to determine percent-correct CNC word recognition preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after activation. Outcomes from 318 similar patients who also had at least three postoperative CNC word scores were examined. Linear mixed-effects regression was used to examine CNC word performance over time. The time when each patient achieved maximum performance was recorded as a surrogate for time of performance plateau. Patients were assigned as candidates for less intense follow-up if they were high performers and achieved performance plateau.Results: Among 804 patients with at least one postoperative score, CNC score improved at all time intervals. Average performance after the 3-month time interval was 47.2% to 51.5%, indicating a CNC ≥ 50% cutoff for high performers. Among 318 patients with at least three postoperative scores, performance improved from 1 to 3 (P = .001), 3 to 6 (P = .001), and 6 to 12 (P = .01) months. Scores from the 12-and 24-month intervals did not significantly differ (P = .09). By 12 months after activation, 59.7% of patients were considered candidates for less intense follow-up.Conclusion: Findings suggest that CNC ≥ 50% is a reasonable cutoff to separate high performers from low performers. Within 12 months after activation, 59.7% of patients were good candidates for less intense follow-up.

show abstract

Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients

Cited by 72 publications

References 6 publications

Remote programming of cochlear implants

Remote programming of cochlear implants

Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care

A Novel Performance‐Based Paradigm of Care for Cochlear Implant Follow‐Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About