AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Is Advanced Bionics really "behind" in their technology?

soutthpaw · 06-16-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdmeggers

.... I feel AB is more advanced technology wise... I mean, ClearVoice? Waterproof CI, better protection of the internal device (it can tolerate up to 6 joules, whereas Med-El and cochlear are between 1-3 joules), only 25% capacity of the internal device is being used, so it still has 75% more to go for further upgrades/advancements (Med-El is about 50%, while Cochlear is just about maxed out capacity wise with no further room for further technological advances, they'd have to come up with a whole new internal device with more room for such advancements), etc. And keep in mind with Cochlear, it's not wise to SWIM with their device on. Has to be still clean water, only up to 3 feet for half an hour, which doesn't even compare to the Neptune. And as for Med-El's longer electrode array, it really doesn't make that much difference sound-wise.

All three companies are going to do what they can to keep up with the technology, but I felt AB was further ahead than the other 2 myself.

Check out cochlear implant HELP and see the stats on the different devices.

The way I see it, Cochlear keeps coming up with new processors (with some improvements), they came up with the N5 internal implant but it's pretty much the same package as the N24 (just thinner and different shaped), but they haven't done much to improve speech processing strategies (and have been focusing a lot of their attention on the BAHA's from my understanding). I don't know much about Med-El as I don't pay as much attention to them. AB, they're always working away to improve EVERYTHING, processor design, new speech processing strategies, and are even currently working on a newer, smaller BTE processor rumored to be released 1-2 years from now.

All 3 implants do get the job done either way. It just depends on what you want most from the implant as each device will have their pros and cons.

I am not going to sing the praises of any one device but I can absolutely dispute that Cochlear is not doing research to improve strategies. I was in several of their Bi-lateral research studies over a couple year period and the have several different ones going on at the same time and that is just here in the USA (Denver) they do research at other places like Australia. I actually worked with a couple of the researchers from there that were here in the US doing research.
One thing I can prove is that more electrode is not necessarily better. Due to one of my CI's being too deep, they remapped both CI's to align to the bilateral CT scan they did. Result was improved unilateral hearing in the ear that was too deep and improved bilateral scores and localization of sound. They probably spend more on research than both other companies combined. Also look at percentage of Internal component failure (the impant itself. you will see Cochlear is the lowest failure rate) for the external I think AB is lower. however the processor is much easier to replace if it fails than the implant. AB also had to stop selling for a while due to repeated non-compliance with FDA mandates due to contamination and safety issues of the implant. I do not know the other brands well but Cochlear strives on making devices backwards compatible. My initial Implant was with the 3G processor and now the same implant will work with the Freedom and the 5 versions. There is also much more they are definitely not maxed out on the capabilities of the device or the implants... Check battery life too between the various brands.
Also find a surgeon that has experience with the brand you are getting.