Thank You...so if that's right, why did the doctors at Mayo Clinic "encourage me" to have the CI????..Saying I would be an "excellent candidate"...as I still had and have my speech....hmmmm...and was deafened at 14 yrs. old. Been a long time now!
Hmm. I can't figure that one out! The way an implant works is that it bypasses the damaged portion of the ear and stimulates the auditory nerve directly. Without a functioning auditory nerve, there is nothing to stimulate. Is the nerve completely dead, or is there some function? Maybe they determined it was functioning enough that a CI would work? Or is it possible that they meant an ABI (Auditory Brainstem Implant)? That is an option for those who don't have a functioning nerve due to the removal of tumors on the nerve.
My daughter had an implant failure 2 yrs ago, but it had the misfortune to occur at the exact same time as an antibiotic-resistant ear infection. The implant passed integrity testing, but she could not hear ANYTHING with it.
They blamed it on auditory nerve death and said a CI would never work for her again. She has a malformed cochlea, and there is no 'test' to accurately determine nerve function, short of reimplantation (a new implant would either work, or it wouldn't, thus proving the case one way or the other). We decided to reimplant so that we'd know once and for all.
She wore her implant every day right up until she was reimplanted 4 months later (she wouldn't take it off, even though it didn't work anymore), and it never worked again. 2 weeks after she was reimplanted, she was activated, and imagine everyone's surprise when her little voice pipes up, "I can hear you!" So it wasn't nerve failure after all, though they still will not call it an implant failure (subsequent testing of the implant showed it to be in perfect working condition). Frankly, they have no idea what happened. I call it a soft failure though.