Completely implantable hearing aids?

Z

Zillion

New Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a moderate sensorineural hearing loss and usually wear ITC hearing aids for it, but recently I've looked around (on the internet) to see the sort of progress made in implants which would correct hearing to the same extent (or better) than hearing aids...

A cochlear implant wouldn't work for me (and, as I understand it, the hearing gained from CIs still has a noticeably robotic quality to it - or am I wrong?), and I've mostly encountered supposedly "implantable" hearing aids which, upon closer inspection, seem to require a rather obvious external component (like this, for example). :roll: The rationale for something like this just doesn't make any sense to me. If there's going to be an external component anyway, what's the point? I'd hardly call it an improvement, especially since normal hearing aids are external and don't need a hole in your skull to function.

But anyway - I did come accross something about one form of implant, the Envoy, that seems to be more sensible, as far as implants go. So, does anyone know anything more about this, or know (or could hazard a guess) when it might be more readily available, and how much it would cost? Would the sound quality be the same as (or better than) a normal hearing aid? Are there any other similar products being developed or already available? Does anyone have, even, firsthand experience with such a thing? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Zillion said:
...
A cochlear implant wouldn't work for me (and, as I understand it, the hearing gained from CIs still has a noticeably robotic quality to it - or am I wrong?)...

But anyway - I did come accross something about one form of implant, the Envoy, that seems to be more sensible, as far as implants go. So, does anyone know anything more about this, or know (or could hazard a guess) when it might be more readily available, and how much it would cost? Would the sound quality be the same as (or better than) a normal hearing aid? Are there any other similar products being developed or already available? Does anyone have, even, firsthand experience with such a thing? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A CI can have that robotic sound quality at first. Your brain adapts to the input and things start sounding normal. It is all a part of the adjustment period and I can attest to that personnally. Believe me the clarity of sounds is remarkable to me. This should not be a reason for not getting one.

As for the Envoy, I've not heard many positive things and it is still sort of experimental. In other words, the jury still out.
 
Zillion, my advice to you is to try BTE aids BEFORE the completely implantable aid. The baby aids really don't give enough power....also try digital aids too.... The jury is definitly still out for the totally implantable aids, and it'll probaly be a few years before they get approved. Even then, you'll probaly have to pay out of pocket for them.....and they aren't cheap, from what I've heard.
 
sr171soars said:
A CI can have that robotic sound quality at first. Your brain adapts to the input and things start sounding normal. It is all a part of the adjustment period and I can attest to that personnally. Believe me the clarity of sounds is remarkable to me. This should not be a reason for not getting one.
Click to expand...
Ah, maybe I've judged too quickly then... In that case, do you happen to know if a CI could be of any benefit to someone who's cochlear is not the problem?


deafdyke said:
Zillion, my advice to you is to try BTE aids BEFORE the completely implantable aid. The baby aids really don't give enough power....also try digital aids too.... The jury is definitly still out for the totally implantable aids, and it'll probaly be a few years before they get approved. Even then, you'll probaly have to pay out of pocket for them.....and they aren't cheap, from what I've heard.
Click to expand...
I wore BTE aids for probably 10 years, then digital BTEs for around 4. Most recently, I wore CIC aids for about a year, before deciding they just weren't powerful enough and getting ITCs instead. I'm pretty comfortable with the ITCs at the moment. I'm told they should be just as powerful as the BTEs I had, and they sound sufficiently clear, so I'm relatively satisfied with these. But still, I'd be happy to pay (within some reason...) for implantable ones if I was satisfied it would be at least as good, and didn't require anything too invasive.
 
I don't have any implants (or know anything about the Envoy), but even powerful hearing aids can have a mechanical quality to the sound output. When I finally got a BTE for my left ear, a lot of things (including my voice) sounded unnatural, but having adjusted to it it all sounds normal now. You should try BTEs before springing for an implant... They're a lot cheaper and might be exactly what you need. And since a lot of places would let you try before you buy, you wouldn't have to spend anything if you decide it's not for you.
 
Hi, you said you have a moderate sensorineural hearing loss and that a CI wouldn't work if the problem is not the cochlea. However by definition,

Sensorineural hearing loss occurs when there is damage to the inner ear (cochlea) or to the nerve pathways from the inner ear (retrocochlear) to the brain. Sensorineural hearing loss cannot be medically or surgically corrected. It is a permanent loss.

Sensorineural hearing loss not only involves a reduction in sound level, or ability to hear faint sounds, but also affects speech understanding, or ability to hear clearly.

Sensorineural hearing loss can be caused by diseases, birth injury, drugs that are toxic to the auditory system, and genetic syndromes. Sensorineural hearing loss may also occur as a result of noise exposure, viruses, head trauma, aging, and tumors.

This information comes from ASHA (American Speech-Language Hearing Association).

So, I guess if you meant that your type of sensorineural loss is retrocochlear, (damage to the actual nerve) then you are right in that the CI probably would not work for you. A CI also would not work if you happened to have ossification (bony substance) buildup inside your cochlea. But you would need to discuss this fully with your audiologist and also an ENT surgeon to know whether you qualify. Many people with sensorineural loss believe they are not CI candidates but in fact turn out to be so (such as those who lost their hearing from meningitis). On the other hand, to qualify for a CI you must have a Profound loss, otherwise they won't do it.

I don't know a lot about the ENVOY either but I do hear some promising things about it from some people who have had it implanted in the trial program. From what I know it is totally implanted and the battery is also included in the internal part. Users are provided with a "remote control" device which they can use to control on/off, volume, etc. Supposedly the battery is made to last 4 years and at it's end time the user goes to get a new battery placed in by a small surgical incision done under local anesthetic.

There is a lot of confusing misinformation out there regarding whether one would qualify for an implantable hearing aid, CI, BAHA, etc... but the only way to know for sure is to get a full consultation with both your audiologist and ENT specialist who have throrough understanding of your particular loss and can best help you decide what to go with, even if it just means regular BTE or digital aids.

It's so exciting to know that in this day and age there are more and more options available out there for all types of loss.
 
Check out this link which shows the June 2006 "Newsweek" article on hearing loss. In it is some interesting information about the newest implantable hearing aids and also some even newer research on latest inventions that may become part of the future:

http://www.hei.org/news/innews/newsweek.htm
 
Zillion said:
Ah, maybe I've judged too quickly then... In that case, do you happen to know if a CI could be of any benefit to someone who's cochlear is not the problem?


I wore BTE aids for probably 10 years, then digital BTEs for around 4. Most recently, I wore CIC aids for about a year, before deciding they just weren't powerful enough and getting ITCs instead. I'm pretty comfortable with the ITCs at the moment. I'm told they should be just as powerful as the BTEs I had, and they sound sufficiently clear, so I'm relatively satisfied with these. But still, I'd be happy to pay (within some reason...) for implantable ones if I was satisfied it would be at least as good, and didn't require anything too invasive.
Click to expand...

A CI is designed specifically for somebody who cochlear hairs don't do their "magic" (trigger neural impulses to the cochlear nerve) properly anymore. The cochlea still is viable with it's nerve lining to send impulses to the brain. This is how a CI works...it stimulates the cochlear nerve lining directly bypassing the cochlear hairs. The majority of deafness in the world involves this type of problem. There are other reasons for a hearing loss and I guess that is what you are dealing with one of them. In that case, a CI may or may not be an option for you (see comments by Superfroggy).

.
 
I am 23 years old with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, and as one who refuses to wear hearing aids (even ITCs – Yes, I admit its an image thing. Rail me all you want.) I have been following the envoy for over a year now and I am really holding out hope that this gets approved by the FDA and can provide a significant help to my hearing.

A year a go, for a weeks I was in dialogue via email with one of the doctors from the envoy site who is involved in the clinical trials and I was very pleased with the doctor’s honesty regarding the envoy. Although it was not everything I wanted to hear I was glad that she was not acting as a snakes oil salesmen. She did not set these unrealistic expectations for the envoy procedure. She told me that the envoy will not restore my hearing to “normal” as some are proclaiming and that the device will work more like an analog hearing aid, rather than a digital hearing aid. The doctor also did not guarantee that the envoy would give patients more functional hearing than a traditional aid. The doctor really made it seem as if the envoy is more of a cosmetic alternative for those who do not like wearing aids, rather than something that performs better than an aid. The doctor also mentioned to me that they had to redesign the envoy device because during the first clinical trial they found that moisture in the ear were causing problems.

I did get confused when the doctor compared the envoy to more like an analog aid when the sites says it uses the ears anatomy to create a more natural sounds, but I never asked the doctor to elaborate. She stopped responding to my emails after a while. I guess I was bugging her too much. lol

Just thought I’d share that with you. Hopefully it helps.
 
I am 23 years old with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, and as one who refuses to wear hearing aids (even ITCs – Yes, I admit its an image thing. Rail me all you want.) I have been following the envoy for over a year now and I am really holding out hope that this gets approved by the FDA and can provide a significant help to my hearing.
Click to expand...
Lou, have you been hoh all your life or is this a recent thing? I mean I totally undy being self conscious about aids.....I went through that too...Just wish there was more visabilty as to hearing aids....but unfortunatly hearing aids aren't seen as "sexy"
That's good that the docs are being realistic about the envoy....Some of the testmonials on a Forum I Shall Not Name just seem SO highly suspect...like they are totally totally hyping it.
The Envoy may be FDA approved but I wouldn't hold your breath on insurance approval....bet you anything it's going to be VERY hard to get insurance to pay for it.
 
Hi DD, I was born with normal hearing (I used to be able to hear a pin drop) but hearing loss does run only on the female side of my mom's family. My dad's family is fine. My mom, and aunt have profound hearing loss, another one of my aunts has mild to severe hearing loss and my grandma and great grandma also had profound hearing loss.

Throughout my teenage years I did abuse my ears. I went to club after club with no plugs and I used to blast the walkman for hours a day and I really think thats what did me in. When I went to the doctor and asked him if I got hearing loss through inheritance he told me its very unlikely since the hearing loss ran only on the female side of my mothers family (not one male in my mom's family has it or ever had it) the doctor said it shouldnt cross over to the male side.

I also believe my hearing loss is due to noise exposure because I also have tinnitus and the most common way of getting T is by abusing your ears. I was really stupid and careless and I paid for it.

I really hope this is not inherited and that if I protect my ears (i started wearing ear plugs everywhere once i found out i lost hearing) I wont lose much more hearing. Its something I constantly worry about.

As for the envoy. If Insurance does not pick it up then that is gonna be a real bummer because the cost of the surgery is upposedly going to be around $30k. I dont understand why the insurance companies would have a problem picking it up though? Dont they cover the C.I. surgery? If the envoy ever gets FDA approved and I think it can help me I know I will fight tooth and nail with my insurance company.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

Lou
 
Last edited:
Lou82 said:
...

As for the envoy. If Insurance does not pick it up then that is gonna be a real bummer because the cost of the surgery is upposedly going to be around $30k. I dont understand why the insurance companies would have a problem picking it up though? Dont they cover the C.I. surgery? If the envoy ever gets FDA approved and I think it can help me I know I will fight tooth and nail with my insurance company.

Lou
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned before, the Envoy I believe is still somewhat experimental. Most insurance companies wouldn't want to outlay that type of money unless they thought one's prognosis was excellent and the device really shows promise. If it has been established that the Envoy really worked, then they shouldn't be adverse to paying for it as it is cheaper than a CI. FYI - a CI can cost between $50,000 to $100,000.
 
Oh so it's a relatively recent thing, your hearing loss? Can undy that. It takes time to come to terms with being hoh. A lot of young folks still see it as an old person issue....and I'll admit it most people who have hearing loss are old folks..... but come and join us. Yes, most of us here have always been hoh....but at least we're young and have a fun cool culutre that's more interesting then How to Read an Audiogram 101......
I dont understand why the insurance companies would have a problem picking it up though? Dont they cover the C.I. surgery?
Click to expand...
Yeah, they do.....but the thing is, only a relative few folks can benifit from CI.....so the cost burden isn't that much of an issue. There is already something out there that can benifit folks who have too much hearing for a CI which is called a HEARING AID. (and it's MUCH cheaper then The only advantage over a HA that the envoy has is COSMETIC......and trust me....if most insurance cos don't cover hearing aids, they aren't gonna cover the Envoy!
 
I'am staying far away from those things, like hell over high water!

:eek3: :eek3: :eek3: :evil: :eek3: :eek3: :eek3:

They claim digitals are the future and the best, yet not too many people like them at all. And I just do not want something permantly attached to my brain underneath the skull, no way in hell!

If I go deaf, they I'll finally be free of the pain of being hard of hearing, and living in the Deaf Culture will be so freeing for me!
 
deafdyke said:
Yeah, they do.....but the thing is, only a relative few folks can benifit from CI.....so the cost burden isn't that much of an issue. There is already something out there that can benifit folks who have too much hearing for a CI which is called a HEARING AID. (and it's MUCH cheaper then The only advantage over a HA that the envoy has is COSMETIC......and trust me....if most insurance cos don't cover hearing aids, they aren't gonna cover the Envoy!
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with you on how many could benefit from a CI...it more than a few.

Overall a good point and I agree with your assessment of the economic impact if they had to cover hearing aids (and the Envoy is just a glorified HA by any other name)... That would bust their finances to no end and it would only get worst down the road for the many hearing people (idiots) who are destroying their hearing with loud music.
 
No.....the thing is....the population that can benifit from CI is much smaller then the population that can benfit from aids. There's even a sizable percentage of folks who have "deaf" losses who are functionally hoh with aids. Yes, they've expanded criteria, for implantation, so that it's not just folks who do very poorly with aids, but the severe-profound population is lots smaller then the aidable popultion....see what I mean now?
 
deafdyke said:
No.....the thing is....the population that can benifit from CI is much smaller then the population that can benfit from aids. There's even a sizable percentage of folks who have "deaf" losses who are functionally hoh with aids. Yes, they've expanded criteria, for implantation, so that it's not just folks who do very poorly with aids, but the severe-profound population is lots smaller then the aidable popultion....see what I mean now?
Click to expand...

Point noted and you are correct...*sigh*. I just took the wrong context from your statement... :Oops:
 
Back
Top