CONCLUSION: Our results attest that the Otologics MET Carina(™) is a viable treatment for moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and for cases of mixed hearing loss, and that in selected cases it could represent an alternative to conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with the fully implantable Carina(™) in eight adult patients, seven with moderate to severe SNHL and one with mixed hearing loss. METHODS: Eight implanted adult patients were submitted to a comprehensive audiological evaluation. RESULTS: We did not record any surgical relevant complication in any of the patients, nor any significant postoperative variation in hearing thresholds, for air conduction or bone conduction, indicating the absence of surgical damage to the cochlea. All the patients demonstrated improvements in speech perception abilities with the device functioning and reported subjective benefits. With regard to the postoperative adverse effects, we had problems with feedback noise, which resolved with minor fitting adjustments in seven cases, while it required a second surgery to change the microphone position in the other patient. In one case a minimal extrusion of the microphone cable occurred requiring a revision surgery, a device failure occurred in one case, requiring substitution, and one patient decided on explantation of the device owing to psychological problems.
CONCLUSION: Our results attest that the Otologics MET Carina(™) is a viable treatment for moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and for cases of mixed hearing loss, and that in selected cases it could represent an alternative to conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with the fully implantable Carina(™) in eight adult patients, seven with moderate to severe SNHL and one with mixed hearing loss. METHODS: Eight implanted adult patients were submitted to a comprehensive audiological evaluation. RESULTS: We did not record any surgical relevant complication in any of the patients, nor any significant postoperative variation in hearing thresholds, for air conduction or bone conduction, indicating the absence of surgical damage to the cochlea. All the patients demonstrated improvements in speech perception abilities with the device functioning and reported subjective benefits. With regard to the postoperative adverse effects, we had problems with feedback noise, which resolved with minor fitting adjustments in seven cases, while it required a second surgery to change the microphone position in the other patient. In one case a minimal extrusion of the microphone cable occurred requiring a revision surgery, a device failure occurred in one case, requiring substitution, and one patient decided on explantation of the device owing to psychological problems.
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; James R Easter; Mohamed A Alhussaini; Daniel J Tollin; Herman A Jenkins Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Janaina Oliveira Bentivi Pulcherio; Aline Gomes Bittencourt; Patrick Rademaker Burke; Rafael da Costa Monsanto; Rubens de Brito; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Ricardo Ferreira Bento Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240