Studies: Bilateral Cochlear Implants Rock!.. Read on

B

Boult

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
0
(Thanks to Bob MacPherson of bhNEWS on Yahoo groups who posted this on CI Yahoo groups)

This is about a collection of peer-reviewed papers that all came to
conclusions, in one form or another,of universal praise in the benefits of
bilateral cochlear implantation!

NEW from Advanced Bionics, but brand blind, and of interest to all of the CI
family.

Entitled Bilateral Cochlear Implantation - Selected Bibliography of Peer
Reviewed Publications

From the AB website for professionals.

Do Enjoy and Learn!

Bob

http://tinyurl.com/ychfy2

(Boult's note: it is a link to the PDF file)
 
Thanks Boult for the link.
Going straight to them...
---------

Great info. I passed it straight on to Lotte's "specialists" around her... They should allready know, but it's good info, nice overview.

Thanks again....
 
They may rock, but I don't think they will become common. Mostly b/c hearing loss severe enough (in both ears) to warrent bilateral CI, tends to be kind of rare.
Also insurance companies tend to be very miserly when it comes to bilateral implantation. One CI is expensive enough......why should an insurance company pay for TWO?!?!? I mean it's not like the benifit is amazingly outstanding.......it's basicly hearing in noise (even hearing people often have difficulty in those situtions) and localization of sound.
I think in some cases, like auditory nereopathy or multiple disabilites or whatever, bilateral implantation might be seen, but overall, it will still be pretty rare.
 
deafdyke said:
They may rock, but I don't think they will become common. Mostly b/c hearing loss severe enough (in both ears) to warrent bilateral CI, tends to be kind of rare.
Also insurance companies tend to be very miserly when it comes to bilateral implantation. One CI is expensive enough......why should an insurance company pay for TWO?!?!? I mean it's not like the benifit is amazingly outstanding.......it's basicly hearing in noise (even hearing people often have difficulty in those situtions) and localization of sound.
I think in some cases, like auditory nereopathy or multiple disabilites or whatever, bilateral implantation might be seen, but overall, it will still be pretty rare.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure this is the case. I think bilateral implantation is becoming more common for profoundly deaf people (some of the kids mentioned on this board have bi-implants, right?). And it seems to be possible for people who get them later in life to get insurance funding for both - I'm in the early stages of talking to a surgeon about a CI now, and she says that my insurance will probably cover both sides, as long as I space the surgeries apart by a few months.

And why not? If you can go from 70% word recognition to 90%, or you can localize sound, or hear in noise (your comparison is incorrect here, I think - hearing people have trouble hearing in noise, but I suspect they still have less trouble than people with one or even two implants), or eliminate the acoustic shadow, that's certainly worth doing.
 
deafdyke said:
They may rock, but I don't think they will become common. Mostly b/c hearing loss severe enough (in both ears) to warrent bilateral CI, tends to be kind of rare.
Also insurance companies tend to be very miserly when it comes to bilateral implantation. One CI is expensive enough......why should an insurance company pay for TWO?!?!? I mean it's not like the benifit is amazingly outstanding.......it's basicly hearing in noise (even hearing people often have difficulty in those situtions) and localization of sound.
I think in some cases, like auditory nereopathy or multiple disabilites or whatever, bilateral implantation might be seen, but overall, it will still be pretty rare.
Click to expand...

:roll: why all the negativity?
 
The benefits are clearly presented in the .pdf provided by Boult and in the other thread started by Boult. I believe that nowadays and in the future, the insurance companies won't really have a case to deny bilateral implants. It's simple: if other people in the US of A have bilateral cochlear implants paid in full by their insurance companies, they've already paved the way for us.

And we want my son to hear as effortlessly as can be. He gets excited every time when we drive by the University of Kentucky because he thinks we're taking him back for a second CI surgery! LOL!
 
No, but ismi.........there are probaly a lot of people out there with "lopsided" losses, or who can get a lot of benifit from hearing aids as well.
oh and greema, I'm just a cynic..........
 
deafdyke said:
No, but ismi.........there are probaly a lot of people out there with "lopsided" losses, or who can get a lot of benifit from hearing aids as well.
oh and greema, I'm just a cynic..........
Click to expand...

Of course. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that bilateral implantation will replace hearing aids. Just that, hey, CIs are good enough now that there are substantial improvements to be seen from having two.
 
With every case for bilateral CIs that is approved, more and more insurance companies will start to realize the benefits of two CIs compared to one. Even the President of Cochlear believes that it won't be very long (approximately 5-8 years) before simultaneous bilateral implantation becomes the norm rather than the exception.

More and more research studies regarding the overall effectiveness of bilatreal HAs, CIs and hybird hearing (CI + HA) are being performed. For instance, Dr. Ruth Livotsky of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has her own research lab and conducts numerous research studies regarding the benefits of bilateral hearing for children and adults.

If I remember correctly, Cochlear reported that there were approximately 3,000 bilateral CI users around the world. This number is expected to grow within the next 5-8 years.

As a bilateral CI user, I can definitely speak to the benefits of having two CIs compared to one. For example, I'm able to localize sound more accurately and can hear much better in noise. My speech discrimination scores (for the sentence test in noise) improved from 90% with one CI to 97% with two. That may not be seem like a significant improvement, but IMO *any* improvement helps and until you've had the chance to experience unilateral vs. binaural hearing, you can't fully appreciate the difference.

Hear Again

Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with 3G
Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05

Right ear - Nucleus Freedom
Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06
 
Hear Again said:
With every case for bilateral CIs that is approved, more and more insurance companies will start to realize the benefits of two CIs compared to one. Even the President of Cochlear believes that it won't be very long (approximately 5-8 years) before simultaneous bilateral implantation becomes the norm rather than the exception.

More and more research studies regarding the overall effectiveness of bilatreal HAs, CIs and hybird hearing (CI + HA) are being performed. For instance, Dr. Ruth Livotsky of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has her own research lab and conducts numerous research studies regarding the benefits of bilateral hearing for children and adults.

If I remember correctly, Cochlear reported that there were approximately 3,000 bilateral CI users around the world. This number is expected to grow within the next 5-8 years.

As a bilateral CI user, I can definitely speak to the benefits of having two CIs compared to one. For example, I'm able to localize sound more accurately and can hear much better in noise. My speech discrimination scores (for the sentence test in noise) improved from 90% with one CI to 97% with two. That may not be seem like a significant improvement, but IMO *any* improvement helps and until you've had the chance to experience unilateral vs. binaural hearing, you can't fully appreciate the difference.
Click to expand...

Where's proof?

For honest, I doubt that most insurance would cover on 2nd CI because one CI is good enough for us, such as one of my friend wear one CI and he's doing well with oral language. 2nd CI is pointless because most people with one CI is good understand with speech language. The numbers are counted in worldwide and applied on universal health center, that where Cloggy's daughter got 2nd CI because Norway offers universal health center since USA and New Zealand don't offers it.

I don't trust in universal health center because insurance is better deal for us and less tax than most other countries.
 
Pacman said:
Where's proof?

For honest, I doubt that most insurance would cover on 2nd CI because one CI is good enough for us, such as one of my friend wear one CI and he's doing well with oral language. 2nd CI is pointless because most people with one CI is good understand with speech language. .....................
I don't trust in universal health center because insurance is better deal for us and less tax than most other countries.
Click to expand...
Have you even read anything?

Where's proof: That's what that research is about....
2nd CI is pointless because most people with one CI is good understand with speech language.: You really haven't read the article have you?
 
Pacman said:
The numbers are counted in worldwide and applied on universal health center, that where Cloggy's daughter got 2nd CI because Norway offers universal health center since USA and New Zealand don't offers it.

I don't trust in universal health center because insurance is better deal for us and less tax than most other countries.
Click to expand...

I'm really glad to live in a country with universal health care. It means that the very poor can get a CI (or any other treatment) if they need it even though they do have to wait a while for it. I'm very happy to pay extra tax dollars for that as it means that in general there are less social problems if people have faster access to treatment, since health has a knock on effect throughout society.

I'm not sure why you don't trust universal care because in countries where it exists medical standards are just as good in public hospitals and in many cases better than in the private sector. For very serious life threatening cases I would go to a public hospital first because that is where the expertise and the equipment required for intensive care is. The only advantage of going private here is getting faster treatment for elective surgery and getting bells and whistles hotel treatment such as nice food, your own room etc

I do have private insurance here in Australia as well which means I wait 3 months instead of 2 years. My private health insurance also will pay for bilaterals as well if I qualify. I think that more companies in USA will follow if more studies continue to come out which show a benefit.

By the way New Zealand does have universal health care - it's private health care is actually very small if non existent. I'm not sure where they stand on bilaterals though.
 
R2D2 said:
I'm really glad to live in a country with universal health care. It means that the very poor can get a CI (or any other treatment) if they need it even though they do have to wait a while for it. I'm very happy to pay extra tax dollars for that as it means that in general there are less social problems if people have faster access to treatment, since health has a knock on effect throughout society.

I'm not sure why you don't trust universal care because in countries where it exists medical standards are just as good in public hospitals and in many cases better than in the private sector. For very serious life threatening cases I would go to a public hospital first because that is where the expertise and the equipment required for intensive care is. The only advantage of going private here is getting faster treatment for elective surgery and getting bells and whistles hotel treatment such as nice food, your own room etc

I do have private insurance here in Australia as well which means I wait 3 months instead of 2 years. My private health insurance also will pay for bilaterals as well if I qualify. I think that more companies in USA will follow if more studies continue to come out which show a benefit.

By the way New Zealand does have universal health care - it's private health care is actually very small if non existent. I'm not sure where they stand on bilaterals though.
Click to expand...

I'm doubt that most insurance companies would cover for 2nd CI because we know that one CI is good enough to understand with oral language and sound environment. If studies said would improving in small percent, such as 90% for one and 97% for two then total is about 7%, that's not enough to get reason for them to cover it.

Again, I don't trust in universal health center because most of them are under government that charge more taxes (federal tax) and limited supplies, that what we learn in economic class. I just post based on opinion about how is criticism on universal health center.
 
More companies are covering them. Other companies are being forced to cover them. Unfortunately, people are just taking the NO answer and walking away. As long as you have a doctor saying a bilateral ci is a medically necessary, the ins co will try to reject it. They will ultimately lose the fight and have to pay. As said above, the more people that get the 2nd CI covered by insurance, the beter. When our ins broker looked into the 2nd CI for Lilly, he looked at the other ins co. that have covered 2nd CI and told our co that the other co are covering it, so the should too. It worked. As of now, we are going to get the ball roliing in dec. for Lillys left ear to be implanted.

Pacman, we are all aware that you are not a fan of CI. But do yourself a favor, dont speak what you do not know of. There is alot more to consider than the 7% hearing increase, when making your statement.
 
If studies said would improving in small percent, such as 90% for one and 97% for two then total is about 7%, that's not enough to get reason for them to cover it.

Those percentages were based on my own experience. Some bilateral CI users have reported as high as a 20%-30% increase in their speech discrimination scores (both in quiet and in noise) when compared to the use of only one CI.

The main arguments for bilateral CIs has to do with an improved quality of life meaning greater personal safety (one of the most important considerations for a second CI), improved speech discrimination in noise *and* being able to localize sound.

Fortunately, audis and surgeons know what kind of information is needed for insurance companies to approve coverage of bilateral CIs. They wouldn't use a small number like 7% to demonstrate the benefits of two CIs compared to one. Instead, they would indicate improvement in generic terms being sure to also include arguments concerning sound localization and improved personal safety.

There may be plenty of unilateral CI users who perform well with one implant (more power to them! :)), but that doesn't mean those of us who would like two should be denied that choice. Besides, not everyone performs well with only one CI.

I would love if it if the employees of major insurance companies could spend a day (or better yet, a week) living with unilateral hearing. Perhaps they would have a better appreciation of the benefits of bilateral hearing. After all, we were born with two ears, right? :)

Hear Again

Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with 3G
Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05

Right ear - Nucleus Freedom
Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06
 
Some bilateral CI users have reported as high as a 20%-30% increase in their speech discrimination scores (both in quiet and in noise) when compared to the use of only one CI.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's SOME! I mean I do think that the bilateral CI is good for some people, but I also don't think that it will become the norm any time soon, since it's kind of rare to have bilateral profound not helped by hearing aids at ALL losses.
 
deafdyke said:
Yeah, but that's SOME! I mean I do think that the bilateral CI is good for some people, but I also don't think that it will become the norm any time soon, since it's kind of rare to have bilateral profound not helped by hearing aids at ALL losses.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's rare but depends on people if feel like to get 2nd CI.

For profound deaf, such as Steel and he got good benefit with HA, that one is powerful HA (Digital or HD) and alot of profound deaf people don't have CI. Should I order new powerful HA instead of CI? I don't think so and wasting of money for get small sounds.
 
deafdyke,

With more research studies being conducted and more cases for bilaterals being approved by insurance companies, I really do think they will become more commonplace. Just look at CIs for instance. There was a time in the not too distant past (late 80's/early 90's) when insurance companies refused to cover the cost of a single CI. Now almost all insurance companies cover them.

Additionally, with an increasing number of CI users who have residual hearing in their nonimplanted ear, many of them find the HA to no longer serve any useful benefit after approximately 6 months of CI + HA use. (I was one of them.) This has less to do with the presence of severe-profound or profound bilateral hearing loss than it does with one's inability to effectively use a HA in their nonimplanted ear over time because of how the CI gradually takes over.

Hear Again

Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with 3G
Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05

Right ear - Nucleus Freedom
Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06
 
For some reason, I took hearing test before got CI and audiologist would tell if which ears are better to implant, such as hearing is worse in right ear than left ear then rather to implant on right ear. It gave an optional if want wear HA on left ear then that my decide but not much to wear it.

Not all profound deaf people are get CI, some are good benefit with HA and some aren't care about hearing. I don't think it was takeover because both of HA and CI aren't competitive, unlike PS3 and 360.
 
Back
Top