New TECH Talk: Why early implantation matters beyond clinical benefits


TECH Talks

Dr. Anil Lalwani, Vice Chair of Research in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, capitalizes on his 25 years of experience to explore the clinical and quality-of-life benefits of earlier implantation for hearing loss.

In a three-part video series, Dr. Lalwani describes the implications of earlier implantation. In this TECH Talk, he highlights the shift from only implanting the profoundly deaf to now implanting CI patients with significant residual hearing since CI outcomes are more predictable. This in turn may lead to better quality-of-life for patients.

Dr. Lalwani stresses the importance of considering CI audiological criteria and assessing the importance of CI criteria on paper and the patient’s everyday functionality as well. Understanding if a hearing aid is appropriately facilitating all aspects of a patient’s life should be at the forefront of professional conversations.

Because those with hearing loss must spend energy actively listening, patients often feel exhausted. As Dr. Lalwani reiterates through a patient testimony, this factor can also coincide with depression and feelings of helplessness. However, this may change if steps are taken toward earlier implantation.

He concludes, “Implanting somebody who’s struggling, but may have more hearing than you normally would implant, can be life transforming.”

Watch now to hear more about earlier implantation!

For more TECH Talk videos from industry experts, subscribe to the ProNews Blog and visit our TECH Talks page.

1. Manrique-Huarte R et al (2016) Treatment for hearing loss among the elderly: Auditory outcomes and impact on quality of life.
2. Audiol Neurotol, 21S1:29-35. 3. Cosetti MK (2016) Neurocognitive testing and cochlear implantation: Insights into performance in older adults. Clin Interv Aging, 11:603-13.
3. Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman M, deLissovoy G. Cost Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant in 258 Profoundly Deaf Individuals. Laryngoscope.1996;106:816–821

Related Posts