Why not Cochlear Transplants?!

P

Phi4Sius

New Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
506
Reaction score
0
And yes, I'm well aware of those who are not knowledgeable about Cochlear Implants referring to them as transplants after performing a Google search on the terms involved. That's not what I'm referring to here.

So I got to thinking. They're able to implant and transplant nearly everything. They can even correct cross eyed individuals with surgery on the optical nerve.

So why AREN'T there Cochlear Transplants (which include a new cochlea + organ of corti), or Organ of Corti Transplants? Wouldn't transplants theoretically restore normal hearing to those with severely profound sensorineural loss? Why is everyone always talking about techniques that are always 10-15 years off (hair cell regeneration) when a transplant may do the job here and now?!
 
Why would you want to transplant and take immunosupressents which shorten your lifespan?

A cochlear implant would be preferable over a transplant to me.
 
How do you get the hair cells to grow on an artificial cochlea? How do you connect the artificial cochlea to all the nerves? It's much easier to figure how to grow hair cells on your real cochlea. Ive read all the articles and theres about 10 ways to grow hair cells and in fact one article was talking about "recruiting" surviving hair cells to do double duty or to take over for other frequencies. Most people know recruitment is bad but scientists are looking for ways to turn this around and make recruitment work with you, not against you!
 
Why is everyone always talking about techniques that are always 10-15 years off (hair cell regeneration
Click to expand...
Dunno.....but hair cell regeneration is still pretty much pie in the sky now. Don't hold your breath that it'll become a reality any time soon.
 
Bottesini said:
Why would you want to transplant and take immunosupressents which shorten your lifespan?

A cochlear implant would be preferable over a transplant to me.
Click to expand...

Not only that but also run the risk of rejection of the implanted cochlea? For me, that is not an option.

I thought the purpose of transplants were to save lives? People can live without a cochlea but cant live without a good heart. :dunno:
 
I am not concern about cochlear transplants. I never hear of it before. I prefer CI over CT.
 
Bottesini said:
Why would you want to transplant and take immunosupressents which shorten your lifespan?

A cochlear implant would be preferable over a transplant to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. I do not want to have to take drugs to suppress my immune system to avoid rejection of the cochleas. When you think about the pros and the cons of a cochlea transplants, the cons outnumber the pros largely due to the necessity of having to take immune suppressants. Uh, no thanks!

A CI is just so much more simpler. No anti-rejection drugs, thus no worrying about getting sick, less susceptible to serious infections, etc. With a CI you pretty much have to only worry about meningitis and the general ear infections. Meningitis can be easily avoided for the most part with vaccinations and the general ear infections can be taken care of with antibiotics.

With a cochlea transplant you would need:
*more complicated surgery to transplant the delicate cochlea
*anti-rejection/immune suppressants drugs that can make you sick and more susceptible to many serious infections because the drugs makes your immune system weaker in order to prevent it from rejecting the cochleas or any other organ transplants
*constant monitoring as is common with many organ transplants
*very expensive over the entire lifetime due to the meds and the constant monitoring and any problems that can most likely pop up as a result of a organ transplant as is common with a kidney or heart transplant. And I'm not talking about $60 grand....I'm talking like $500,000 or even more because this would be so fucking complicated!
*the pros of this surgery beyond just restoring hearing is yet unknown
*there would be so much research that still have to be done before even thinking about doing a trial
*I highly doubt the FDA would approve this procedure based on the given fact that cochlear implants work quite well in many cases and therefore cochlea transplants are not needed.
*It's simply not necessary anyway - it does not save your life.
*you're not going to die if you don't get a cochlea transplant anyway - you also won't be tied to a machine 3 or 4 times a week for 3-4 hours at a time like you would be if you were a kidney failure patient who is most definitely in need of a kidney transplant like my friend N.S. who has been on dialysis for 15 years, ever since she was 10.
*YOU DO NOT NEED A COCHLEA TRANSPLANT. IT'S JUST FUCKING SILLY. END OF STORY. :roll:
 
Phi4Sius said:
And yes, I'm well aware of those who are not knowledgeable about Cochlear Implants referring to them as transplants after performing a Google search on the terms involved. That's not what I'm referring to here.

So I got to thinking. They're able to implant and transplant nearly everything. They can even correct cross eyed individuals with surgery on the optical nerve.

So why AREN'T there Cochlear Transplants (which include a new cochlea + organ of corti), or Organ of Corti Transplants? Wouldn't transplants theoretically restore normal hearing to those with severely profound sensorineural loss? Why is everyone always talking about techniques that are always 10-15 years off (hair cell regeneration) when a transplant may do the job here and now?!
Click to expand...

Um. Ever heard of complications from the transplant itself and from anti-rejection drugs? That is very common with many organ transplants. Uh, no thanks! A CI surgery is really so much easier and simpler. I am sure my friend who has been on a kidney dialysis for the last 15 years would agree with me on this one.
 
Cochlear Transplants are a stupid idea, thats why they invented cochlear IMPLAnt. Much more safer and reasonable. Being deaf and not being able to hear certainly does not warrant a transplant, you cannot die from deafness.
 
In this day and age, we have no way of regenerating nerves to the degree necessary to restore functional hearing. The cochlea itself is rarely the problem, as many have said; it's the nerves and nerve endings (hair cells) that create the havoc. You've probably read about hand and face transplants; the biggest problem with these is the nerves don't reconnect properly to create the proper function. Large areas remain both numb and paralyzed.

In the case of "cross eyes" or strabismus, the surgery is performed on the muscles, not the optic nerve itself.

Some peripheral nerves are capable of limited regeneration. However, the recovery is related to the degree of damage and to the length of the nerve segment.

To illustrate the difficulty, imagine a large telephone line, the kind with hundreds of wires contained within the insulation. Now imagine cutting that in half, and "splicing" it to another phone cable. How many of the phones would work, and with the correct phone number? How many might connect to the wrong house? How many would be useless? Now multiply that several thousand fold, and that is what cochlear transplantation would require. A momumental and ambitious task...science fiction, at this point.
 
I realize everyone has there different views on this, but your harshness against transplants is very rude ! I have a 6 mos. old who cannot get an implant, but can get a transplant. so, those against it are saying my child is better off deaf ??!!

Your ignorance proceeds you. if you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't post it.
 
momofsweetone- if you knew the risks of CI or a cochlear "transplant" that does NOT exist ..but the risks far outweigh that of a Cochlear Implant. What's your sons deafnes? severe/profound? and at 6 months i dont think they can qualify for a CI anyways until they reach 12 months if i am correct.
 
and you are also coming into a forum where most of us have been deaf for years or since birth...so we accept it. You are hearing I presume (as I used to be) and I know the value of hearing but when you don't have it and accept that you don't it's not the end of the world....We are not being harsh against transplants, we just know what is possible and not possible in technology, and at this point transplants are not a smart idea or a possible one in regards to the cochlea and deafness
 
my daughter is severe and when of age will still not qualify for a CI due to issues. i have done a lot of research on all aspects of this.
 
Oh I am sorry about this, have you got a 2nd or 3rd opinion on that? It's always worth the try. Start teaching/learning sign language it will benefit her a lot and has she got hearing aids yet?
 
she can't use a hearing aid. there is no conductivity. i will use one to keep the neurons from dying pending future new developments.
 
HI Momofasweetone, Welcome

Have you have searched possiblity of ABI (Auditory brain implant?) I am not sure of age restrictions for ABI and the diagnosis of your daughter's deafness so I thought i'd mention it.
 
I will search that now... but i believe I've come across it before. I see her ENT surgeon again in a couple weeks. i will bring all of this to him. Thanks !
 
you are welcome. Worth trying every possiblities... :) But in the mean time teach/learn ASL (or canadian) so she have some form of commuication.
 
Back
Top