CONCLUSION:Remote cochlear implant (CI) programming is a viable, safe, user-friendly and cost-effective procedure, equivalent to standard programming in terms of efficacy and user's perception, which can complement the standard procedures. The potential benefits of this technique are outlined. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the technical viability, risks and difficulties of remote CI programming; and evaluated the benefits for the user comparing the standard on-site CI programming versus the remote CI programming. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Remote Programming System (RPS) basically consists of completing the habitual programming protocol in a regular CI centre, assisted by local staff, although guided by a remote expert, who programs the CI device using a remote programming station that takes control of the local station through the Internet. A randomized prospective study has been designed with the appropriate controls comparing RPS to the standard on-site CI programming. Study subjects were implanted adults with a HiRes 90K(R) CI with post-lingual onset of profound deafness and 4-12 weeks of device use. Subjects underwent two daily CI programming sessions either remote or standard, on 4 programming days separated by 3 month intervals. A total of 12 remote and 12 standard sessions were completed. To compare both CI programming modes we analysed: program parameters, subjects' auditory progress, subjects' perceptions of the CI programming sessions, and technical aspects, risks and difficulties of remote CI programming. RESULTS: Control of the local station from the remote station was carried out successfully and remote programming sessions were achieved completely and without incidents. Remote and standard program parameters were compared and no significant differences were found between the groups. The performance evaluated in subjects who had been using either standard or remote programs for 3 months showed no significant difference. Subjects were satisfied with both the remote and standard sessions. Safety was proven by checking emergency stops in different conditions. A very small delay was noticed that did not affect the ease of the fitting. The oral and video communication between the local and the remote equipment was established without difficulties and was of high quality.
RCT Entities:
CONCLUSION: Remote cochlear implant (CI) programming is a viable, safe, user-friendly and cost-effective procedure, equivalent to standard programming in terms of efficacy and user's perception, which can complement the standard procedures. The potential benefits of this technique are outlined. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the technical viability, risks and difficulties of remote CI programming; and evaluated the benefits for the user comparing the standard on-site CI programming versus the remote CI programming. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Remote Programming System (RPS) basically consists of completing the habitual programming protocol in a regular CI centre, assisted by local staff, although guided by a remote expert, who programs the CI device using a remote programming station that takes control of the local station through the Internet. A randomized prospective study has been designed with the appropriate controls comparing RPS to the standard on-site CI programming. Study subjects were implanted adults with a HiRes 90K(R) CI with post-lingual onset of profound deafness and 4-12 weeks of device use. Subjects underwent two daily CI programming sessions either remote or standard, on 4 programming days separated by 3 month intervals. A total of 12 remote and 12 standard sessions were completed. To compare both CI programming modes we analysed: program parameters, subjects' auditory progress, subjects' perceptions of the CI programming sessions, and technical aspects, risks and difficulties of remote CI programming. RESULTS: Control of the local station from the remote station was carried out successfully and remote programming sessions were achieved completely and without incidents. Remote and standard program parameters were compared and no significant differences were found between the groups. The performance evaluated in subjects who had been using either standard or remote programs for 3 months showed no significant difference. Subjects were satisfied with both the remote and standard sessions. Safety was proven by checking emergency stops in different conditions. A very small delay was noticed that did not affect the ease of the fitting. The oral and video communication between the local and the remote equipment was established without difficulties and was of high quality.
Authors: Kyle T Fletcher; Frank W Dicken; Margaret M Adkins; Trey A Cline; Beth N McNulty; Jennifer B Shinn; Matthew L Bush Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Gina R Diaz; Todd Sanford; Roger Harpster; Daniel L Valente Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jenny L Goehring; Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Daniel L Valente; Ryan W McCreery; Gina R Diaz; Todd Sanford; Roger Harpster Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 2.297