Residual Hearing after CI

[Hear Again]

as has already been stated, it is best that ci candidates have the expectation that they will lose all of their residual hearing. that was my expectation, so i was not surprised when it happened.

 

[LadySekhmet]

ci audi's warn people about the loss of residual hearing so they don't have to worry about lawsuits if a ci candidate isn't told that they may lose their hearing after surgery and they do. all ci's are designed to preserve residual hearing even though this doesn't always happen. when one opts to have a ci, the best thing to do is to have the expectation of losing all residual hearing.

I totally agree. My CI audie warned me and I fully expected to lose my residual hearing. Turned out that I didn't. It was still at the same level as it was pre-ci. Same thing went for my right ear as well.

My surgeon explained that she inserted the electrodes very carefully, hence why the surgery took a much longer time (4 hours to 5)
compared to my friends or other people who had shorter surgeries - avg 1 to 3 hours.

 

[etalton]

I think the main reason I lost mine was due to the ossification in my cochlea. It made it much harder to insert the electrodes, which is why the surgery lasted over 4 hours. My surgeon said I was lucky he was able to insert the entire array.

 

[Hear Again]

I think the main reason I lost mine was due to the ossification in my cochlea. It made it much harder to insert the electrodes, which is why the surgery lasted over 4 hours. My surgeon said I was lucky he was able to insert the entire array.

et,

even if your surgeon would have been unable to insert the entire array, he still would have had the option of using a different ci specifically designed for people who have complete ossification.

 

[Hear Again]

welcome back, lady!

 

[jasin]

One of many reasons why I refuse to be implanted, loosing all my residual hearing.

 

[overthepond]

Like every CI doc would say, prepare for loss of residual hearing when being implanted.

Really, what's the point of having residual hearing if you cannot hear much with hearing aids. Thats what meeting the criteria is for, along with other assessments we had to go through.

I didn't tick in poll as i am not sure as i haven't had unaided hearing test yet. Hopefully would at my 6 month check up (god, it's next month). But i won't dwell if i haven't got any residual hearing.

 

[jillio]

Like every CI doc would say, prepare for loss of residual hearing when being implanted.

Really, what's the point of having residual hearing if you cannot hear much with hearing aids. Thats what meeting the criteria is for, along with other assessments we had to go through.

I didn't tick in poll as i am not sure as i haven't had unaided hearing test yet. Hopefully would at my 6 month check up (god, it's next month). But i won't dwell if i haven't got any residual hearing.

Well said. I do not have a CI, but to my way of thinking, if the residual hearing is not useable with a hearing aid, then loss shouldn't really be a concern. If criteria are adhered to, someone with a good deal of usable residual hearing with HAs would not be a candidate.

That said, the sort arrays are also capable of retaining residual hearing in the lower frequencies, provided that the lower frequency residual was useable to the individual prior to implantation.

 

[jasin]

Like every CI doc would say, prepare for loss of residual hearing when being implanted.

Really, what's the point of having residual hearing if you cannot hear much with hearing aids. Thats what meeting the criteria is for, along with other assessments we had to go through.

I didn't tick in poll as i am not sure as i haven't had unaided hearing test yet. Hopefully would at my 6 month check up (god, it's next month). But i won't dwell if i haven't got any residual hearing.

I've heard of people who use hearing aids that have pretty good hearing when the hearing aids are in use that just get tired of using them and opt to be implanted.

Also, I am not sure if its this case with all deaf people, but many profoundly deaf people are able to use hearing aids now. Hearing aid technology has really advanced over the years. Marlee Matlin, the famous deaf actor, is profoundly deaf and she's able to use hearing aids. She is just one example though.

So I guess my question is, do hearing aids disqualify someone from being implanted or are hearing aids just another option as far as technology goes?

 

[Daredevel7]

So I guess my question is, do hearing aids disqualify someone from being implanted or are hearing aids just another option as far as technology goes?

Wearing hearing aids definitely do not disqualify someone from being implanted. I used hearing aids and even though I could hear some with my right ear with the HA (which is now implanted), it was mostly for sound awareness.

I checked if I have residual hearing recently by putting on my old hearing aid, and I DO have some left, but it's definitely less than before. Not really concerned because as overthepond said, it's so little, does it even really have benefits anyway?

 

[Hear Again]

I've heard of people who use hearing aids that have pretty good hearing when the hearing aids are in use that just get tired of using them and opt to be implanted.

Also, I am not sure if its this case with all deaf people, but many profoundly deaf people are able to use hearing aids now. Hearing aid technology has really advanced over the years. Marlee Matlin, the famous deaf actor, is profoundly deaf and she's able to use hearing aids. She is just one example though.

So I guess my question is, do hearing aids disqualify someone from being implanted or are hearing aids just another option as far as technology goes?

no, hearing aids do not automatically disqualify someone from being a ci candidate. in order to be considered a ci candidate one must receive little or no benefit in the best aided conditions (i.e. speech discrimination of 40% or less).

as for marlee matlin, she signs and does not rely on her hearing aids for oral communication.

additionally, the amount of benefit a profoudly deaf (or someone with severe-profound hearing loss) receives varies from person to person. just because one person is able to benefit from hearing aids doesn't mean the next person can. i had severe-profound hearing loss (profound left ear; severe-profound right ear) and yet i qualified for a ci based on my speech discrimination score of 8% for my left ear and 22% for my right (aided with hearing aids and a comtek fm system).

 

[Hear Again]

a ci center will not implant someone unless they demonstrate the fact that they receive little or no benefit from their hearing aids. let's not forget that there are some peope with a GREAT deal of residual hearing who inquire about ci's. my former ci audi told me about someone who came in to be evaluated for a ci who had moderate hearing loss in both ears. needless to say, she was not accepted as a ci candidate.

 

[jillio]

a ci center will not implant someone unless they demonstrate the fact that they receive little or no benefit from their hearing aids. let's not forget that there are some peope with a GREAT deal of residual hearing who inquire about ci's. my former ci audi told me about someone who came in to be evaluated for a ci who had moderate hearing loss in both ears. needless to say, she was not accepted as a ci candidate.

Right. The issue is not about the amount of residual hearing, but the usefullness of the residual hearing.

 

[Hear Again]

Right. The issue is not about the amount of residual hearing, but the usefullness of the residual hearing.

exactly.

i know of cases where children with moderate-severe hearing loss in one ear and profound in the other have received ci's. the reason for this is the fact that they had progressive hearing loss and were expected to lose their hearing quickly.

yet another example are children with AN (auditory neuropathy). in some cases, children with AN benefit more from an implant than they do hearing aids.

 

[jillio]

exactly.

i know of cases where children with moderate-severe hearing loss in one ear and profound in the other have received ci's. the reason for this is the fact that they had progressive hearing loss and were expected to lose their hearing quickly.

yet another example are children with AN (auditory neuropathy). in some cases, children with AN benefit more from an implant than they do hearing aids.

Yes, some people can have a great deal of residual hearing, but be unable to discriminate anything with that residual hearing aided. Others can have less residual hearing, but have great discrimination when aided.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes, some people can have a great deal of residual hearing, but be unable to discriminate anything with that residual hearing aided. Others can have less residual hearing, but have great discrimination when aided.

bingo.

the audi who fitted me with my first pair of hearing aids in 1985 told me that some people with severe-profound or profound hearing loss can discriminate speech better than some people with moderate hearing loss.

furthermore, no two people with identical audiograms hear exactly the same.

 

[jillio]

bingo.

the audi who fitted me with my first pair of hearing aids in 1985 told me that some people with severe-profound or profound hearing loss can discriminate speech better than some people with moderate hearing loss.

furthermore, no two people with identical audiograms hear exactly the same.[/QUOTE]

This is very true. Which is why it is dangerous to rely on dB levels and Hz levels alone when making a determination.

 

[Daredevel7]

The human ear is so complex. It's amazing really.

 

[jillio]

The human ear is so complex. It's amazing really.

Yes it is. And when you add the brain into the equation, which is responsible for interpreting the sound, it can be mind boggling. (no pun intended!)

 

[Jiro]

furthermore, no two people with identical audiograms hear exactly the same.

exactly. Funny thing is... I can hear my friend calling for me but my brain's just not "deciphering" it as a cue to response to my friend.

just tap me please