CI technology question

C

cjg

New Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Hello all , I am a candidate for a CI and am doing research into which one may be the best for me.

please pardon the question if you consider it a stupid one.

But are you limited to the processor of one company ?

Is it possible to use a processor from another company with a implant from one ?? If even in theory.

While I am sure it is much more complex then this. And that the implant and processor is built to work together. Isnt the implant ( in VERY general terms ) simply a wire that passes an electrical current to the cochlear ? What is preventing the use of an AB processor with a med-el implant ?? Or even any of the three ( I am in usa so there are only the three available for me ) What is the actual limiting factors ?
 
I don't think competitor's processors are compatible withe each other. Each has its own design and electrical circuitry. I am sure it would work 'in theory', but I don't think anyone wants to spend the money on research.

There are 3 to choose from: Cochlear, Med El, and Advanced Bionics.

I have a Cochlear, only because the one and only surgeon in my area prefers Cochlear.

They all get the job done. I don't think one is better than the other. The surgeon you pick will tell you which one he wants to implant.
 
Wirelessly posted

If it get to that point companies will buy them out and will continue to make compatible processors.
 
green427 said:
I don't think competitor's processors are compatible withe each other. Each has its own design and electrical circuitry. I am sure it would work 'in theory', but I don't think anyone wants to spend the money on research.

There are 3 to choose from: Cochlear, Med El, and Advanced Bionics.

I have a Cochlear, only because the one and only surgeon in my area prefers Cochlear.

They all get the job done. I don't think one is better than the other. The surgeon you pick will tell you which one he wants to implant.
Click to expand...

uh AB just had a recall, remember?
 
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean the others are better quality.
 
I have an Advanced Bionics-Harmony model chosen for me by the Cochlear Implant team at Sunnybrook/Toronto in 2007. Yeah, they do use all 3 companies Though I knew about implants from various articles- Time magazine/CdnHearingSociety- Vibes describing a couple of persons went through in the process of getting one. In the 90s the uproar about whether young children/babies should get an implant in Toronto newspapers.
I understand 2 persons recently had "some problem" with their AB-I haven't received any info from them about mine.
I have mentioned-never heard of Advanced Bionics or Med El and actually had a Cochlear Corp booklet on Implants date 1998.
I would guess the Implant team you are involved now with can probably give you a good
idea which would be "best" for you. (Sunnybrook team has 18 years of experience)
Hope all turns well for you-cjg- as it has so far for me.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Compatibility

CJ:

I'm an Electrical Engineer, and hearing impaired myself. I'm also a strong advocate for hearing healthcare, including cochlear implants. In addition, I'm a candidate myself, stuck in insurance hell.

My friend Tina Lannin in London has two articles on CI's: This one in general; and this extensive article on brand comparisons which I highly recommend.

I also edit The Hearing Blog, which earlier today published an analysis of the Advanced Bionics CI recall, titled Failing Ugly: Advanced Bionics cochlear implant circuit goes haywire. Towards the bottom, I offer suggestions if you are considering an AB CI, including whether your surgeon was going to implant the HiRes 90K Helix (perimodional) or the 1j semi-curved (lateral placement) electrode array.

Dan Schwartz
Cherry Hill, NJ

cjg said:
Hello all , I am a candidate for a CI and am doing research into which one may be the best for me.

please pardon the question if you consider it a stupid one.

But are you limited to the processor of one company ?

Is it possible to use a processor from another company with a implant from one ?? If even in theory.

While I am sure it is much more complex then this. And that the implant and processor is built to work together. Isnt the implant ( in VERY general terms ) simply a wire that passes an electrical current to the cochlear ? What is preventing the use of an AB processor with a med-el implant ?? Or even any of the three ( I am in usa so there are only the three available for me ) What is the actual limiting factors ?
Click to expand...
 
All implant works well as each other and have high success rate. It is up to individual to choose the device that suits them the most. Writing pros and cons of each devices would help with your decision.

AB, unfortunately is on recall at the moment and it could be 2-3 months, could be longer before they are back on the market, I hope this hasn't affected anyone's decision to choose this device. It was just unlucky batch of implants and all implants do carry risks.

I have Cochlear, I chose it because it seems more rugged than others, 4 program, 2 choices of batteries (disposable and rechargeable) and backward compatibilty. I am sure I would have done well with AB or Med-EL as with Cochlear.

Good Luck, I had mine for little more than 2 years and love it.
 
overthepond said:
I have Cochlear, I chose it because it seems more rugged than others, 4 program, 2 choices of batteries (disposable and rechargeable) and backward compatibilty. I am sure I would have done well with AB or Med-EL as with Cochlear.

Good Luck, I had mine for little more than 2 years and love it.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on what you mean by "backward compatibility" and why was that important to you ?

One of the things I am readying is that the actual stimulator ( the implanted part ) has not changed with the CA in a very long time. And that the current processor ( Nucleus 5 ) just about maxes out the capabilities of the implanted portion. That there is not much "room to grow" without having to replace the implant itself.
 
cjg said:
Can you expand on what you mean by "backward compatibility" and why was that important to you ?
Click to expand...

For us, a focus on backwards compatibility means that the company puts significant resources into retrofitting the latest advances in the external components (processor, controller, mic, etc.) for previous versions of the receiver/stimulator and electrode array. We were very happy to be able to upgrade my daughter's processor to the N5 just months after the new N5s were released for new implants, taking advantage of some significant improvements in the external components, and have spoken with many early implantees who have been able to move into the newer technology with some ease. But I've not heard anything negative about any of the 3 manufacturers with regard to backwards compatibility.

The differentiating factors for us were 1. our surgeon's preference/comfort level/familiarity with one particular model 2. device success/failure/safety rate or record and 3. Market saturation and availability of audis/professionals with expertise in using/mapping a particular product. When it comes to the actual functionality of each, despite the differences in how each is marketed, I think every one provides excellent access to sound, ability to customize and develop a sophisticated set of programs specific to the individual, and "room to grow," technologically.

And overall, I think we'd have been thrilled with any of the three, perhaps would have made different choices if we lived elsewhere, or if our hospital had a greater focus on/history of supporting one of the others.
 
cjg said:
Can you expand on what you mean by "backward compatibility" and why was that important to you ?

One of the things I am readying is that the actual stimulator ( the implanted part ) has not changed with the CA in a very long time. And that the current processor ( Nucleus 5 ) just about maxes out the capabilities of the implanted portion. That there is not much "room to grow" without having to replace the implant itself.
Click to expand...

This was discussed few weeks ago, this email will explain both. At the time when I was choosing between AB and Cochlear, AB wasn't backward compatibility but I believe they are working on this now. It's important to me so that I can have the upgrade to newer techology as often as possible.

--- On Tue, 19/10/10, Kate King <KKing@cochlear.com> wrote:


From: Kate King <KKing@cochlear.com>
Subject: Implant capacity
To:
Date: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010, 9:58



Hello
How are you ? Well I hope.

I just thought I'd let you know that I've recently been contacted regarding
concerns over Nucleus implant capability / capacity, which I understand has
been discussed on the CIUG forum.

If this is the case,I would just like to reassure you that you should not
be concerned over implant capability and capacity and whilst this is
something that is almost impossible to quantify, Cochlear is a company that
continues to lead the way globally with a proven history of innovation,
reliability, safety and performance for our recipients. Our closest
competitors have tried to replicate many of Cochlear's innovations in their
own CI systems, such as Neural Response Telemetry / Titanium implant
packaging / curved electrode array designs / front end processing to name
but a few. Recipients can be confident that with Cochlear's history of
innovation it will continue to provide advances to the Nucleus 5 systems as
new break throughs become available.

We have designed and built a system in Nucleus 5 which is ready for today
and for the future with state of the art bidirectional wireless technology
and dual microphone technology- again unique to this system delivering
unsurpassed performance. This commitment to performance is supported by the
work of Dr Jace Wolfe, Director of Audiology, Hearts for Hearing
Foundation, Oklahoma who showed an average 28% improvement for unilateral
and bilateral Nucleus 5 users over Advanced Bionics recipients.

With our custom designed implant chip our N5 system is capable of
delivering a multitude of different sound coding strategies and stimulation
modes ensuring optimal performance according to each recipients individual
needs. Cochlear is currently working on several different sound coding
areas but we will not bring new technology to our clinics and recipients
without proven performance or user benefits.

We define future proofing as making implants and speech processors today
which are fully capable of supporting new innovations whilst leaving no
user behind. For example our very earliest implantees with implants 23
years old can take advantage of our newer technology, as we always make our
speech processors backwards compatible for early implant users- a claim not
all manufacturers can make.

Take care.

All the best, Kate


Kate King
Hear now. And always
Cochlear - Implants for Children & Adults - Bionic Ear Hearing Implant | Cochlear UK
 
GrendelQ said:
The differentiating factors for us were 1. our surgeon's preference/comfort level/familiarity with one particular model 2. device success/failure/safety rate or record and 3. Market saturation and availability of audis/professionals with expertise in using/mapping a particular product. When it comes to the actual functionality of each, despite the differences in how each is marketed, I think every one provides excellent access to sound, ability to customize and develop a sophisticated set of programs specific to the individual, and "room to grow," technologically.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the comments .. While the term 'backward compatible' fits when looking at it from the point of view of the processor. I actually would care less about the new processor being backward compatible with an implant. But that the processor / implant I get being upgradable.

Backward compatibility can be a double edged sword however. if new features are sacrificed for its sake. Should a CI company not implement a new feature in a new processor / implant scheme just because it can not be used with the previous generation implant ?? Not trying to say that any of the CI company's do that , just in general.

So far in my research , it looks like the AB system has more 'room to grow' in its implants then the other folks. I am still trying to figure out if that is just marketing hype. However they are also currently under recall , which will likely be a factor in my decision. It may even be considered a positive factor.

The topic I started this thread around was more about "inter compatibility" and if any of the three company's processors could be interchanged with the implants. Or perhaps if someone makes an 'after market' processor. Similar to how you can install an advanced graphics card for games in a computer.

I assume that is similar to the "mac vs PC" issue , but I also know that today a mac actually uses hardware so similar , that you can install Windows on it.

I am curious , you mention as point 1 being your surgeons preference.Did you mean that was the most important factor ? Also how did you select your surgeon ?
 
If I was going to pick a CI, It would be cochlear.

If you are at the age where you are more likely to get cancer, you need something that suit your needs. Like removable magnet for MRI and such. Cochlear offer that (but back in my days of CI research, it was the only one. I'm sure by now other CI companies are doing the same thing)
 
Random question - for those who know for certain ...
Is Cochlear the only company with the removable magnet ? (ie one that is easily removed and reinserted)

While I'm not a candidate currently, nor interested - I do like to keep up on what OPTIONS I may or may not have in the future.

With my complicated medical history and various conditions - There is no way I could even contemplate getting something that prohibited MRIs, CTs and other types of imaging.
 
Anij: there is a magnet on the inner processor which "meets" with the external one. Is that what you are asking about?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
 
In my case-the surgeon- Dr J Chen is part of the Sunnybrook team. I didn't pick him and he has been there for a number of years doing implants. I understand a meeting is held before to determine which implant is most "suitable for each patient". I have mentioned before -18 years of actual experience is something-to say the least.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Anij said:
Random question - for those who know for certain ...
Is Cochlear the only company with the removable magnet ? (ie one that is easily removed and reinserted)

While I'm not a candidate currently, nor interested - I do like to keep up on what OPTIONS I may or may not have in the future.

With my complicated medical history and various conditions - There is no way I could even contemplate getting something that prohibited MRIs, CTs and other types of imaging.
Click to expand...

I was curious too, and I found out that AB now have removal magnet.

and this is what Med-el says:

Can I undergo X-ray, CT Scan or MRI even if I have an implant?
Users of MED-EL cochlear implants may undergo X-ray and CT scanning.

In specified circumstances, MED-EL cochlear implant users may receive an MRI provided that they have been implanted for at least 6 months. MED-EL cochlear implants have been demonstrated to pose no known hazard under fields of strength of 0.2 Tesla (without surgical removal of the internal magnet). Please contact MED-EL to obtain additional advice regarding the particular conditions surrounding your MRI scan.
 
deafgal001 said:
If I was going to pick a CI, It would be cochlear.

If you are at the age where you are more likely to get cancer, you need something that suit your needs. Like removable magnet for MRI and such. Cochlear offer that (but back in my days of CI research, it was the only one. I'm sure by now other CI companies are doing the same thing)
Click to expand...

yes you are correct , both CA and AB are mri compatible. According to the manufactures websites.

http://www.advancedbionics.com/Supp...rt/MRI_and_the_HiRes_90K_Implant.cfm?langid=1

MRI & Other Questions | Cochlear
 
Anij said:
Random question - for those who know for certain ...
Is Cochlear the only company with the removable magnet ? (ie one that is easily removed and reinserted)

While I'm not a candidate currently, nor interested - I do like to keep up on what OPTIONS I may or may not have in the future.

With my complicated medical history and various conditions - There is no way I could even contemplate getting something that prohibited MRIs, CTs and other types of imaging.
Click to expand...

Both AB and CA current implants are ok for mri's less then 1.5T ( with the magnet removed ) Some of the older CA implants are not designed to have the magnet removed.

There is almost nothing implantable that can preclude you from a CT. A CT is simply an 'advanced xray' that uses computers to stitch together many smaller xrays into a larger picture.
 
drphil said:
In my case-the surgeon- Dr J Chen is part of the Sunnybrook team. I didn't pick him and he has been there for a number of years doing implants. I understand a meeting is held before to determine which implant is most "suitable for each patient". I have mentioned before -18 years of actual experience is something-to say the least.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

So what made you choose the sunnybrook team ??
 
Back
Top