Remote Programming of Cochlear Implants

This study investigated the safety and efficacy of remote programming of cochlear implants. Single-subject design SETTING:: Four North American clinical sites PATIENTS:: Forty cochlear implant recipients aged 12 years or older INTERVENTION:: Subjects had their cochlear implants programmed at a locat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOtology & neurotology Vol. 40; no. 3; p. e260
Main Authors Slager, Heidi K, Jensen, Jamie, Kozlowski, Kristin, Teagle, Holly, Park, Lisa R, Biever, Allison, Mears, Megan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.03.2019
Subjects
Adult
Aged
Child
Cochlear Implantation
Cochlear Implants
Computers, Handheld
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Software
Telemedicine - methods
Young Adult
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:This study investigated the safety and efficacy of remote programming of cochlear implants. Single-subject design SETTING:: Four North American clinical sites PATIENTS:: Forty cochlear implant recipients aged 12 years or older INTERVENTION:: Subjects had their cochlear implants programmed at a location that was remote from their audiologist using telecommunication with and without the support of a facilitator. Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-C (SSQ-C) were compared using the subject's in-office MAP (program) and MAPs programmed remotely with and without the assistance of a facilitator. Additional subjective preference data were gathered from subjects and audiologists via questionnaires. MAPs programmed via the three different models did not yield significantly different group mean CNC word scores. No device/procedure-related adverse events occurred. SSQ-C questionnaire results indicated that recipients received similar subjective benefit from familiar in-office, remote-facilitated, and remote-unassisted MAPs. Remote programming is an effective means of cochlear implant service delivery. The practice was approved by the FDA on November 17, 2017 supported by the results of this study.
ISSN:1537-4505
DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002119