European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 270, Issue 4, pp 1507–1512 | Cite as

Multicenter evaluation of Neurelec Digisonic® SP cochlear implant reliability

  • Luminiţa RădulescuEmail author
  • Sebastian Cozma
  • Casimir Niemczyk
  • Nicolas Guevara
  • Ivan Gahide
  • John Economides
  • Jean-Pierre Lavieille
  • Renaud Meller
  • Jean-Pierre Bébéar
  • Emilien Radafy
  • Philippe Bordure
  • Djamel Djennaoui
  • Eric Truy


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.


Failure rate Cumulative survival rate Reliability Cochlear implant 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Leigh J, Dettman S, Dowell R, Sarant J (2011) Evidence-based approach for making cochlear implant recommendations for infants with residual hearing. Ear Hear 32(3):313–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Battmer RD, Linz B, Lenarz T (2009) A review of device failure in more than 23 years of clinical experience of a cochlear implant program with more than 3,400 implantees. Otol Neurotol 30(4):455–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown KD, Connell SS, Balkany TJ, Eshraghi AE, Telischi FF, Angeli SA (2009) Incidence and indications for revision cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Laryngoscope 119(1):152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maurer J, Marangos N, Ziegler E (2005) Reliability of cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132(5):746–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soli SD, Zheng Y (2010) Long-term reliability of pediatric cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 31(6):899–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battmer RD, O’Donoghue GM, Lenarz T (2007) A multicenter study of device failure in European cochlear implant centers. Ear Hear 28(2 Suppl):95S–99SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venail F, Sicard M, Piron JP et al (2008) Reliability and complications of 500 consecutive cochlear implantations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134(12):1276–1281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Battmer RD, Backous DD, Balkany TJ et al (2010) International classification of reliability for implanted cochlear implant receiver stimulators. Otol Neurotol 31(8):1190–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balkany TJ, Hodges AV, Buchman CA et al (2005) Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement. Cochlear Implant Int 6(3):105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balkany TJ, Hodges AV, Buchman CA et al (2005) Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement. Otol Neurotol 26(4):815–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung D, Kim AH, Parisier S et al (2010) Revision cochlear implant surgery in patients with suspected soft failures. Otol Neurotol 31(8):1194–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    McJunkin J, Jeyakumar A (2010) Complications in pediatric cochlear implants. Am J Otolaryngol 31(2):110–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guevara N, Sterkers O, Bebear JP et al (2010) Multicenter evaluation of the Digisonic SP cochlear implant fixation system with titanium screws in 156 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119(8):501–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cote M, Ferron P, Bergeron F, Bussieres R (2007) Cochlear reimplantation: causes of failure, outcomes, and audiologic performance. Laryngoscope 117(7):1225–1235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cullen RD, Fayad JN, Luxford WM, Buchman CA (2008) Revision cochlear implant surgery in children. Otol Neurotol 29(2):214–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu KC, Hegarty JL, Gantz BJ, Lalwani AK (2001) Conservative management of infections in cochlear implant recipients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125(1):66–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ray J, Gibson W, Sanli H (2004) Surgical complications of 844 consecutive cochlear implantations and observations on large versus small incisions. Cochlear Implants Int 5(3):87–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen NL (1995) Medical and surgical perspectives: issues in treatment and management of severe and profound hearing impairment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:149–150PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luminiţa Rădulescu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastian Cozma
    • 1
  • Casimir Niemczyk
    • 2
  • Nicolas Guevara
    • 3
  • Ivan Gahide
    • 3
  • John Economides
    • 4
  • Jean-Pierre Lavieille
    • 5
  • Renaud Meller
    • 5
  • Jean-Pierre Bébéar
    • 6
  • Emilien Radafy
    • 7
  • Philippe Bordure
    • 7
  • Djamel Djennaoui
    • 8
  • Eric Truy
    • 9
    • 10
  1. 1.ENT Department, Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy “Gr. T. Popa”IasiRomania
  2. 2.ENT DepartmentUniversity Hospital BanachaWarsawPoland
  3. 3.ENT DepartmentPasteur HospitalNiceFrance
  4. 4.ENT DepartmentGeneral Children’s Hospital Aghia SophiaAthensGreece
  5. 5.ENT DepartmentNord HospitalMarseilleFrance
  6. 6.ENT DepartmentPellegrin Hospital, University of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  7. 7.ENT DepartmentUniversity Hospital NantesNantesFrance
  8. 8.ENT DepartmentUniversity Hospital MustafaAlgerAlgeria
  9. 9.ENT DepartmentEdouard Herriot University Hospital, Hospices Civils de LyonLyonFrance
  10. 10.INSERM U1028–CNRS UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research CenterBrain Dynamics and Cognition Team, University of LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations