A lot of this hoopla about cochlear is at its capacity for software upgrades for their processor is BS in my opinion. That is saying technology can no longer advance which we all know technology advances EVERYDAY. Scientists work everyday to make advances in medicine and technology etc to say that anything has reached capacity for room to grow and be better is crap. For ME when I get implanted eventually I will be going with cochlear.
It really is not BS , my research has shown me that the actual electronics in the current implant from cochlear is very near its limits. It simply can not fire any faster , nor can the actual physical connections to the electrodes be configured to fire more then one at a time. The firmware ( the software that runs the little computer in the implant ) is also NOT upgradable in anyway.
Any advancement that cochlear makes must be done within these limits.
The AB implant is actually running about 1/4 of its theoretical hardware limits.The processor also uploads a firing table to the implant each time it is connected. This allows the software of the internal implant to be adjusted after implantation.
These are the facts of the hardware.
This does NOT mean that the AB is a "better" implant for any particular person. That is a decision to be made between the implant recipient and there dr.
There are many considerations when deciding which CI to use. The technical specifications of the hardware is just one of many factors.
The support system is a very important factor. I am lucky to live near NYC where I have access to several implant centers which have experience with each of the vendors systems. No matter what unit I end up with , I will have someone within a reasonable drive to handle programmings and mappings
Personally , I am leaning to the AB unit. Even with the current recall.Which I actualy feel shows that AB will do the right thing when it needs to be done. They pulled it before the regulatory agency required them to.
People seem to forget that the only CI company to have any negative regulatory action was CA. They were fined due to violations of the anti kick-back regulations. They were paying ( in various forms ) dr's to implant CA over others.They have enjoyed the largest market share forever , why does the company management feel they need to pay off doctors ? Perhaps because they know that on a level field , other implants are better. To me , that is worse then some technical issue. Things break all the time. No one can be 100%. It is how you handle the failure that is important.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part , but I hope I would be able to make use of the higher firing rates , and the ability to fire more then one electrode at a time. Who knows , I may not be able to.
But it simply a technical fact that the AB has more 'capacity' then the CA or med-el units. While it can be argued that there is no real advantage to the higher firing rates. The fact is that if there is no advantage , the AB can be adjusted to fire at the lower rates of the CA .. The CA can not be adjusted to fire any faster then it does.
In many locations a center that implants AB may be HOURS away , while a center that implants CA is around the block. This is an important factor to consider. In lots of cases it is vital. Especially with young children , who may not be able to tell you that the map needs adjusting.
Just saying that its not bs as you describe it .. but it is also not the only factor to consider.
