CONCLUSION: Remote programming is a viable alternative to face-to-face programming. The procedure can be regarded as safe, time and cost saving, and clinically feasible. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of commercially available video conferencing technology and remote control software for remote programming of sound processors in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients by assessing the feasibility, efficiency, risks, and benefits of remote programming compared to face-to-face programming. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective study. Seventy Nucleus implant recipients were recruited for a random sequence comparison of one remote and one local programming session each. The time required for local or remote programming was measured and resulting MAP T and C levels were compared. The recipient provided feedback on the local and remote programming session. The audiologist and monitoring clinician were asked for their feedback on remote programming. RESULTS: Remote programming sessions were successfully finished for 69 recipients. No significant differences between T and C levels obtained by local and remote programming were found. The audiologists and monitoring clinicians agreed that the remote programming system provided an acceptable level of performance after most sessions. More than 50 participating recipients considered remote programming an efficient alternative to face-to-face-programming.
RCT Entities:
CONCLUSION: Remote programming is a viable alternative to face-to-face programming. The procedure can be regarded as safe, time and cost saving, and clinically feasible. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of commercially available video conferencing technology and remote control software for remote programming of sound processors in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients by assessing the feasibility, efficiency, risks, and benefits of remote programming compared to face-to-face programming. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective study. Seventy Nucleus implant recipients were recruited for a random sequence comparison of one remote and one local programming session each. The time required for local or remote programming was measured and resulting MAP T and C levels were compared. The recipient provided feedback on the local and remote programming session. The audiologist and monitoring clinician were asked for their feedback on remote programming. RESULTS: Remote programming sessions were successfully finished for 69 recipients. No significant differences between T and C levels obtained by local and remote programming were found. The audiologists and monitoring clinicians agreed that the remote programming system provided an acceptable level of performance after most sessions. More than 50 participating recipients considered remote programming an efficient alternative to face-to-face-programming.
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