OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of remote programming for cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the cochlear implant performance for patients who had undergone mapping and programming of their cochlear implant via remote connection through the Internet. METHODS: Postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for 7 patients who had undergone remote mapping and programming of their cochlear implant were compared with the mean scores of 7 patients who had been programmed by the same audiologist over a 12-month period. Times required for remote and direct programming were also compared. The quality of the Internet connection was assessed using standardized measures. Remote programming was performed via a virtual private network with a separate software program used for video and audio linkage. RESULTS: All 7 patients were programmed successfully via remote connectivity. No untoward patient experiences were encountered. No statistically significant differences could be found in comparing postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for patients who had undergone remote programming versus a similar group of patients who had their cochlear implant programmed directly. Remote programming did not require a significantly longer programming time for the audiologist with these 7 patients. CONCLUSION: Remote programming of a cochlear implant can be performed safely without any deterioration in the quality of the programming. This ability to remotely program cochlear implant patients gives the potential to extend cochlear implantation to underserved areas in the United States and elsewhere.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of remote programming for cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the cochlear implant performance for patients who had undergone mapping and programming of their cochlear implant via remote connection through the Internet. METHODS: Postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for 7 patients who had undergone remote mapping and programming of their cochlear implant were compared with the mean scores of 7 patients who had been programmed by the same audiologist over a 12-month period. Times required for remote and direct programming were also compared. The quality of the Internet connection was assessed using standardized measures. Remote programming was performed via a virtual private network with a separate software program used for video and audio linkage. RESULTS: All 7 patients were programmed successfully via remote connectivity. No untoward patient experiences were encountered. No statistically significant differences could be found in comparing postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for patients who had undergone remote programming versus a similar group of patients who had their cochlear implant programmed directly. Remote programming did not require a significantly longer programming time for the audiologist with these 7 patients. CONCLUSION: Remote programming of a cochlear implant can be performed safely without any deterioration in the quality of the programming. This ability to remotely program cochlear implant patients gives the potential to extend cochlear implantation to underserved areas in the United States and elsewhere.
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