OBJECTIVE: To confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of a direct acoustic cochlear implant. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: The study was performed at 3 university hospitals in Europe (Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). PATIENTS: Fifteen patients with severe-to-profound mixed hearing loss because of otosclerosis or previous failed stapes surgery. INTERVENTION: Implantation with a Codacs direct acoustic cochlear implant investigational device (ID) combined with a stapedotomy with a conventional stapes prosthesis MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (3 months after activation of the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant) audiometric evaluation measuring conventional pure tone and speech audiometry, tympanometry, aided thresholds in sound field and hearing difficulty by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire. RESULTS: The preoperative and postoperative air and bone conduction thresholds did not change significantly by the implantation with the investigational Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant. The mean sound field thresholds (0.25-8 kHz) improved significantly by 48 dB. The word recognition scores (WRS) at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL improved significantly by 30.4%, 75%, and 78.2%, respectively, after implantation with the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant compared with the preoperative unaided condition. The difficulty in hearing, measured by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, decreased by 27% after implantation with the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss because of otosclerosis can benefit substantially using the Codacs investigational device.
OBJECTIVE: To confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of a direct acoustic cochlear implant. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: The study was performed at 3 university hospitals in Europe (Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). PATIENTS: Fifteen patients with severe-to-profound mixed hearing loss because of otosclerosis or previous failed stapes surgery. INTERVENTION: Implantation with a Codacs direct acoustic cochlear implant investigational device (ID) combined with a stapedotomy with a conventional stapes prosthesis MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (3 months after activation of the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant) audiometric evaluation measuring conventional pure tone and speech audiometry, tympanometry, aided thresholds in sound field and hearing difficulty by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire. RESULTS: The preoperative and postoperative air and bone conduction thresholds did not change significantly by the implantation with the investigational Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant. The mean sound field thresholds (0.25-8 kHz) improved significantly by 48 dB. The word recognition scores (WRS) at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL improved significantly by 30.4%, 75%, and 78.2%, respectively, after implantation with the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant compared with the preoperative unaided condition. The difficulty in hearing, measured by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, decreased by 27% after implantation with the investigational direct acoustic cochlear implant. CONCLUSION:Patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss because of otosclerosis can benefit substantially using the Codacs investigational device.
Authors: Nina Wardenga; Ad F M Snik; Eugen Kludt; Bernd Waldmann; Thomas Lenarz; Hannes Maier Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Burkard Schwab; Eugen Kludt; Hannes Maier; Thomas Lenarz; Magnus Teschner Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Ad Snik; Hannes Maier; Bill Hodgetts; Martin Kompis; Griet Mertens; Paul van de Heyning; Thomas Lenarz; Arjan Bosman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Nicolas Verhaert; Joris Walraevens; Christian Desloovere; Jan Wouters; Jean-Marc Gérard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 3.240