FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 328:233-237 January 28, 1993 Number 4 Next

	Full Text Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

ABSTRACT

Background Cochlear implants restore some degree of hearing in patients with severe hearing impairment, but the efficacy of different implants has not been compared. We conducted a prospective trial to compare several cochlear implants.

Methods We studied 82 patients who were randomly assigned to receive one of three cochlear implants: the Ineraid multichannel implant (implant 1), the Nucleus multichannel implant (implant 2), and the 3M/Vienna single-channel implant (implant 3). All the patients had profound deafness, and none had derived benefit from hearing aids. The assigned device was successfully implanted in 80 patients. Twenty-four hearing tests were used to assess the patients' performance before implantation and 12 and 24 months after implantation. The tests were grouped into five categories according to their content, and a weighted composite index was developed to provide a single numerical indicator of the overall auditory response.

Results All the patients were able to hear with their implants. Nineteen of the 30 patients (63 percent) who received implant 2, 18 of the 30 patients (60 percent) who received implant 1, and 1 of the 20 patients (5 percent) who received implant 3 were able to distinguish some words and sentences. The scores for the composite index were similar in the patients who received implant 1 and those who received implant 2, and were higher in both these groups than in the patients who received implant 3 (P = 0.02). When 24 patients with implant 2 were given an improved speech processor, their composite index increased significantly within 3 months (P<0.001); their score at that time was also significantly higher (P = 0.04) than the score of the patients with implant 1 at 24 months. Age at implantation, lip-reading ability, and IQ were prognostic indicators of the patients' performance with a cochlear implant.

Conclusions Multichannel cochlear implants are superior to single-channel implants, especially for understanding speech. Changes in speech processing can improve patients' performance.

Source Information

From New York University School of Medicine, New York (N.L.C., S.B.W.), and the Hines Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Ill. (S.G.F.). The members of the Cochlear Implant Study Group are listed in the Appendix.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Cohen at the Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Ave., New York, NY 10016.

Full Text of this Article

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Clark, G. M (2006). The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people--a personal perspective. Phil Trans R Soc B 361: 791-810 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. H., Barton, G. R., Bloor, K. E. (2002). A Cost-Utility Scenario Analysis of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128: 1255-1262 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wooltorton, E. (2002). Cochlear implant recipients at risk for meningitis. CMAJ 167: 670-670 [Full Text]  
• Palmer, C. S., Niparko, J. K., Wyatt, J. R., Rothman, M., de Lissovoy, G. (1999). A Prospective Study of the Cost-Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125: 1221-1228 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rizzo, J. F. III, Wyatt, J. (1997). REVIEW {blacksquare} : Prospects for a Visual Prosthesis. Neuroscientist 3: 251-262 [Abstract]  
• TUCKER, B. P. (1997). The ADA and Deaf Culture: Contrasting Precepts, Conflicting Results. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 549: 24-36 [Abstract]  
• Parving, A., Christensen, B., Salomon, G., Pedersen, C. B., Friberg, L. (1995). Regional Cerebral Activation During Auditory Stimulation in Patients With Cochlear Implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121: 438-444 [Abstract]  
• Hinton, A, Moore-Gillon, V (1994). Recent Advances: Otorhinolaryngology. BMJ 309: 651-654 [Full Text]  
• Johns, M. E., Niparko, J. K. (1993). Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery. JAMA 270: 243-245 [Abstract]  
• Balkany, T. (1993). A Brief Perspective on Cochlear Implants. NEJM 328: 281-282 [Full Text]