Multicenter evaluation of Neurelec Digisonic® SP cochlear implant reliability
- 209 Downloads
Over the past decade, the adoption of universal hearing screening in newborns has led to earlier detection of hearing problems and significant lowering of the age of first cochlear implantation. As a consequence, recipients are now expected to keep their cochlear implants (CIs) for a longer period of time. Comprehensive longitudinal information on CI reliability is essential for device choice. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability (in children and adults) of the latest generation of the Digisonic® SP CI launched in 2006 by Neurelec. Failure rate (FR) and cumulative survival rate (CSR) for a 5-year period were calculated. This survey is a multicenter retrospective study. A questionnaire was sent to nine CI centers requesting information about patients implanted with Neurelec Digisonic® SP CIs. FR and CSR over a 5-year period were calculated on this group. Collaborating centers collected data on 672 patients (362 children and 310 adults) implanted between March 2006 and March 2011. The overall rate of explantation was 2.23 % (15 cases): six devices were explanted due to device failure (0.89 %) and nine were explanted for medical reasons (1.34 %). Four patients were lost to follow-up. The CSR at 5 years was 98.51 % on all patients, 98.48 % for children and 98.57 % for adults. FR was 0.97 % for adults and 0.83 % for children. This first independent study that assesses FR and CSR on the current generation of Digisonic® SP CI represents an important resource that can help clinicians and patients during their device choice.
KeywordsFailure rate Cumulative survival rate Reliability Cochlear implant
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.ISO_Standard (2000) Implants for surgery—cardiac pacemakers—Part2: reporting of the clinical performance of populations of pulse generators. In: Standard I (ed) 5841/2Google Scholar
- 13.Kane JK, Mann EA (2007) ENT devices: cochlear implants. In: Brown LS, Bright RA, Tavris DR (eds) Medical device epidemiology and surveillance, Wiley, NY, pp 395–405Google Scholar